AYER 


mm: 


b  OTHER  PAPERS 


m 


)i 


iW^t 


m 


mm 


M'M  -v 
•;;-vj-;' 


■  u::^-r 


i:m: 


tALUSHA  ANDERSON. SXa.LL.D. 


|:i  j!!:fe!!i^^;:^^;;ij;^j.:l,!:!:^i;•i,^ 


• 

,  j 

1 

■Aaa 

iillllilS  tilpiiiSli 

■■'{iMli'-HipW    l^l'l-id'- 


MIN  22  191R 


Seetloft 


SCIENCE  AND  PRAYER 


SCIENCE  AND  PRAYER 
AND  OTHER  PAPERS 


BY 


GALUSHA  ANDERSON,   S.T.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  Emeritus,  University  of  Chicago. 


Joint-translator  of  Asterius'  Sermons,  Ancient  Sermons 

for  Modern  Times;  author  of  The  Story  of  a 

Border  City  during  the  Civil  War ; 

Hitherto  Untold;  and  When  /  \^ 

Neighbors  were 
Neighbors. 


A 


^^'i  OF  PBi,V^ 
IN  22  191ft 


At  eve  hold  not  thy  hand. 

—  Montgomery, 


BOSTON 


THE  PILGRIM  PRESS 

NEW  YORK 


CHICAGO 


Copyright  1915 
By  GALUSHA  ANDERSON 


THE   PILGRIM   PRESS 
BOSTON 


TO  THOSE  WHO,   IN  FORMER  DAYS, 

SAT  AS   STUDENTS   IN  MY  CLASSROOM  AND   FOR  WHOM 

LOVE,  WITH  EVER-INCREASING  WARMTH,  GLOWS 

IN   MY  HEART,    THIS  VOLUME 

IS   AFFECTIONATELY 

DEDICATED. 


FOREWORD 

The  essays  contained  in  this  volume  are  chosen 
from  among  many  on  account  of  the  permanent 
and  vital  importance  of  the  themes  discussed  in 
them.  Some  of  them  have  never  before  been  pub- 
lished, but  a  part  of  them  have  appeared  from 
time  to  time  in  periodicals  or  in  pamphlet  form. 

The  first,  which  furnishes  the  leading  title  of 
this  book,  was  prepared,  at  the  request  of  the  edi- 
tor, for  The  North  American  Review.  At  the 
time  not  a  few  scientists  were  stoutly  contending, 
since  the  laws  of  nature  are  immutable,  that  the 
belief  that  God  answers  prayer  for  rain  or  the  re- 
covery of  the  sick  is  not  only  untenable  but  even 
preposterous.  And  some  such  scientists  still  lin- 
ger among  us. 

The  second  paper,  written  only  a  few  months 
ago,  is  an  effort  to  free  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment of  all  arbitrary  elements  and  to  interpret 
on  natural  and  scientific  grounds  what  the  Scrip- 
tures say  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ. 

The  Supreme  End  of  Theological  Schools  is  an 
address  delivered  before  The  Rohinson  Rhetori- 
cal Society  at  the  semi-centennial  of  The  Roches- 
ter Theological  Seminary. 

The  interpretation  of  John  21 :15-17  was  pre- 
sented at  the  Eighth  Conference,  held  at  All 
Saints  Memorial  Church,  Providence,  R.  I.  May 


Science  and  Prayer 

11th,  1904,  on  the  Gospel  of  John.  It  afterwards 
appeared  in  the  volume  entitled  Addresses  on  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John. 

The  generosity  of  the  editors  of  The  North  Am- 
erican Review,  in  permitting  me  to  include  among 
the  papers  of  this  volume  Science  and  Prayer,  is 
warmly  appreciated.  Also  the  courtesy  of  the 
editors  of  The  Review  and  Expositor,  in  per- 
mitting me  to  transfer  to  these  pages  the  essay  on 
The  Atonement  through  Sympathy  is  gratefully 
acknowledged. 

My  cockle-shell  is  launched  with  some  misgiv- 
ing. May  a  kind  Providence  steer  her  clear  of 
destructive  mines,  shield  her  from  bombs  dropped 
from  the  upper  air,  from  torpedoes  shot  from  the 
depths  beneath  and  give  her  a  prosperous  voyage ! 

Galusha  Anderson. 
Newtonville,  Mass. 


CONTENTS 

I.    Science  and  Prayer 1 

II.    The  Atonement  through  Sympathy     ...  19 

III.  The  Fundamental  Moral  Attribute  of  God   .  51 

IV.  The  Import  op  John  21:15-17 73 

V.    The  Reasonableness  op  Eternal  Punishment  105 

VI.    Premillenarianism        125 

VII.    The  Supreme  End  op  Theological  Schools    .  161 

VIII.    The  Use  op  the  Scriptures  in  Theology,  A 
Review  op  a  Book  by  the  Late  Propessor 

William  Newton  Clarke,  D.  D.     .     .     .  203 

IX.    How  TO  Develop  Christian  Benevolence  .     .  243 


SCIENCE   AND   PRAYER 


SCIENCE   AND   PEAYER 

God  made  man  in  his  own  image.  God  and  man 
are  kin.  On  account  of  this  kinship  it  is  as  natural 
for  man  to  resort  to  God  in  prayer  as  it  is  for  a 
child  to  ask  a  gift  of  an  earthly  father  whom  he 
loves  and  in  whom  he  confides.  Jesus  Christ,  the 
peerless,  the  Son  of  God,  prayed  and  taught  his 
disciples  to  pray.  Without  so  much  as  the  shadow 
of  a  doubt  he  said,  ^^And  all  things,  whatsoever 
ye  shall  ask  in  prayer,  believing,  ye  shall  receive. ' ' 
(Matt  21:  22.) 

But,  in  our  day,  a  class  of  able  men,  many  of 
them  distinguished  scientists,  think  that  the  bib- 
lical view  of  prayer  is  altogether  false;  that  it 
will  do  well  enough  for  children  and  ignorant  men 
and  women,  but  can  no  longer  satisfy  the  intel- 
ligent and  the  learned.  These  men  represent 
prayer  as  futile,  because  the  laws  of  the  material 
universe  are  absolutely  immutable — nothing  can 
in  the  least  change  or  modify  them ;  therefore,  to 
pray  for  rain  or  for  recovery  from  sickness  is  as 
great  a  folly  as  it  would  be  to  attempt  to  dam  up 
Niagara  with  a  straw.  When  the  atmospheric 
conditions  are  fulfilled,  the  rain  will  descend; 
when  the  physical  and  hygienic  conditions  are 
suitable,  the  sick  will  be  restored  to  health.  But 
these  scientists  do  not  all  agree  in  opinion  any 

[3] 


Science  and  Prayer 

more  than  the  theologians  do.  Some  of  them  are 
theists:  their  God  is  a  personal  God,  who  hears 
prayer.  He  may,  they  affirm,  in  answer  to  prayer, 
bestow  on  men  spiritual  blessings.  If  they  pray 
for  enlightenment,  the  spirit  illuminates  their 
minds ;  if  for  forgiveness  of  sin,  that  blessing  is 
bestowed  and  the  assurance  of  it;  but,  say  they, 
we  cannot  rationally  pray  for  physical  good,  for 
material  blessings,  since  in  the  material  realm  all 
is  governed  by  laws  fixed,  unchangeable. 

Still  others  affirm  that  prayer  is  a  rational  exer- 
cise, not  because  the  petitioner  directly  receives 
in  answer  to  his  prayer  either  spiritual  or  material 
good,  but  on  account  of  the  reflex  influence  of 
prayer  upon  his  own  mind  and  heart.  It  changes 
him.  It  lifts  him  up  into  communion  with  Him 
in  whom  is  *^no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of 
turning.''  No  real  answer  to  prayer  comes  down 
from  God  to  us,  but  by  prayer  we  are  lifted  up 
toward  God  and  transformed  into  his  likeness. 
That  there  is  this  reflex  influence  in  prayer,  no 
candid  observer  can  for  a  moment  doubt ;  but  that 
this  is  all  that  is  implied  in  answer  to  prayer,  we 
are  not  yet  ready  to  admit. 

Such,  then,  are  the  views,  not  of  all,  but  of  many 
of  the  scientists  of  our  day.  Whatever  may  be  the 
diversities  in  their  views,  there  is  substantial 
agreement  in  this,  that  the  iromutability  of  the 
laws  of  nature  shows  the  folly  of  prayer,  especially 
for  material  blessings.  That  such  views  are  at 
variance  with  the  Scriptures,  the  dullest  can  see. 
Both  the  biblical  view  and  this  of  the  materialistic 

[4] 


Science  and  Prayer 

scientists  cannot  be  true ;  they  are  utterly  at  vari- 
ance with  each  other,  absolutely  contradictory. 
Christ  says  with  positiveness  and  with  sweeping 
generality,  ''Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you'';  the 
scientist  says  it  is  folly  to  ask,  as  no  blessing, 
since  the  laws  of  the  material  universe  are  immu- 
table, can  be  bestowed  in  direct  answer  to  prayer. 
It  is  clear,  then,  that  either  Christ  is  mistaken 
or  the  materialistic  scientists  are. 

We  wish,  ''with  malice  toward  none  and  with 
charity  for  all,''  to  call  attention  to  some  points 
in  the  position  of  those  scientists,  who  have  es- 
sayed to  be  not  only  our  scientific,  but  also  our 
religious  teachers,  which  seem  to  us  to  be  weak 
and  untenable ;  and  by  our  tentative  criticism  to 
suggest  that  perchance  the  soundest  science  does 
not  yet  summon  us  to  abandon  the  biblical  view  of 
prayer ;  that  it  is  quite  possible  that  he  who  spake, 
his  enemies  being  the  judges,  as  never  man  spake, 
never  dropped  a  word  in  reference  to  prayer 
which  conflicts  in  any  degree  with  absolute  science. 
The  question  before  us,  then,  is  whether  the  doc- 
trine of  prayer  as  presented  by  Christ  in  the  New 
Testament  is  at  variance  with  established  science. 

Let  us  first  briefly  define  our  terms.  What  is 
science?  It  is  what  we  really  know  in  all  depart- 
ments of  investigation,  whether  the  subject  be  the 
material  universe  or  the  acts  and  states  of  the 
soul  revealed  to  us  through  consciousness.  To 
know  scientifically,  to  be  sure,  implies  accurate 
observation,  analysis,  generalization,  and  correct 
classification ;  but  all  these  processes  simply  help 

[5] 


Science  and  Prayer 

us  really  to  know,  and  to  know  is  the  pith  of  the 
signification  of  the  term  science. 

An  honest,  rigid  application  of  this  definition 
would  reduce  many  ponderous  volumes  on  science 
to  the  compass  of  books  fitted  to  take  their  place 
in  some  vest-pocket  series.  Much  of  so-called  sci- 
ence is  nothing  but  theories  or  hypotheses  to  ac- 
count for  phenomena  which  everywhere  confront 
us,  many  of  which  still  remain  unexplained.  We 
do  not  object  to  these  hypotheses  as  such;  they 
are  good  in  their  place.  They  are  the  tools  with 
which  scientific  men  do  their  work.  All  advance- 
ment in  scientific  knowledge  has  been  made  by 
using  them ;  but  until  proved  to  be  true,  they  are 
no  more  science  than  the  chisel  with  which  the 
sculptor  works  is  the  statue  which  he  brings  forth 
from  the  marble.  We  must  make  a  sharp  dis- 
tinction between  science,  that  which  is  absolutely 
known,  and  hypothesis,  by  means  of  which  we 
strive  to  know. 

On  the  other  hand,  what  is  prayer?  It  would 
not  specially  serve  our  purpose  to  attempt  a  com- 
prehensive definition  of  it;  but  we  wish  to  call 
attention  to  a  single  element  which  should  enter 
into  every  just  definition  of  prayer.  It  must  be 
manifest  to  any  one  who  thinks  at  all,  that  men 
are  dependent  beings.  In  the  family,  in  society, 
and  in  business,  we  all,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent, 
lean  on  one  another,  children  on  their  parents, 
wives  on  their  husbands,  the  ignorant  and  the 
weak  on  the  learned  and  the  strong,  the  poor  on 
the  rich  and  the  rich  on  the  poor.    Now,  lying  at 

[6] 


Science  and  Prayer 

the  very  core  of  prayer  is  the  fact  of  our  depend- 
ence on  God.  By  asking  blessings  of  him  we 
confess  that  dependence;  and  in  this  confession 
of  dependence  we  not  only  submit  our  weakness 
to  his  strength,  but  our  ignorance  to  his  wisdom. 
We  ask,  conscious  that  we  may  make  grievous 
mistakes  in  asking,  so  that  the  innermost  spirit 
of  true  prayer  is  the  submission  of  the  petitioner 
to  God.  The  cry  of  Christ  in  Gethsemane,  as  he 
prayed  in  agony  that  the  cup  might  pass  from 
him,  **Not  my  will  but  thine  be  done,''  is  the 
undertone  of  all  genuine  prayer;  so  that  God  an- 
swers us  truly,  when,  instead  of  giving  us  what 
we  ask,  he  gives  us  rather  the  thing  which,  in  his 
wisdom,  he  sees  that  we  need. 

The  real  difficulty  in  the  way  of  God's  answer- 
ing prayer,  according  to  some  able  scientists,  is, 
as  has  already  been  noted,  the  fact  that  the  laws 
of  the  material  universe  are  absolutely  unchange- 
able. This  has  led  some  theistic  scientists  to  affirm 
that  prayer  for  spiritual  blessings  may  be  an- 
swered, while  prayer  for  physical  good — for  ex- 
ample, for  rain  in  time  of  drought — is  folly.  But 
if  fixity  of  law  makes  prayer  for  physical  good 
absurd,  it  must  make  equally  foolish  prayer  for 
spiritual  blessings,  since  law  is  just  as  fixed  in 
the  realm  of  mind  or  spirit  as  in  the  realm  of 
matter.  The  laws  by  which  the  mind  is  developed 
are  just  as  immutable  as  the  laws  by  which  the 
oak  is  unfolded  from  the  acorn ;  the  laws  by  which 
we  think  are  as  rigid  and  fixed  as  those  which 
regulate  the  rivers  in  their  flow  or  the  clouds 

[7] 


Science  and  Prayer 

which  sweep  across  the  sky.  If,  on  account  of  the 
fixedness  of  law,  it  is  absurd  to  pray  for  rain,  it 
is  for  the  same  reason  equally  absurd  to  pray  that 
the  divine  Spirit  may  illuminate  our  minds  and 
guide  our  thoughts.  If,  then,  God  may  answer 
prayer  for  spiritual  gifts,  he  may,  in  spite  of  the 
unchangeableness  of  law,  answer  prayer  for  phys- 
ical blessings. 

But  we  also  suggest  that  the  position  which  we 
combat  is  probably  untenable,  on  the  ground  that 
these  able  scientists  do  not,  in  stating  their  objec- 
tions to  prayer,  use  the  term  law  with  that  pre- 
cision of  meaning  that  is  requisite  in  scientific 
discussion.  Sometimes  they  personify  it.  It  seems 
clothed  with  personality,  as  when  they  tell  us  that 
the  laws  of  nature  do  this  and  that.  They  often 
deify  it,  ascribing  to  it  attributes  which  the  devout 
theist  ascribes  only  to  God.  This  is  the  method 
of  poetry  rather  than  of  science.  Every  thinker 
knows  that  the  term  law  has  several  distinct  mean- 
ings. It  will  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  note 
barely  two.  We  call  attention  to  the  first  simply 
because  of  its  diversity  from  the  second,  so  that 
by  the  contrast  we  may  add  to  the  vividness  of 
the  second  meaning,  on  which  we  propose  to  com- 
ment. First,  we  speak  of  moral  law.  It  is  dis- 
tinguished by  oughtness.  We  are  so  made  that 
we  discern  a  distinction  between  right  and  wrong ; 
we  know  intuitively  that  they  are  opposites.  Men 
universally  recognizing  this  distinction  feel  that 
they  ought  to  do  the  right  and  shun  the  wrong. 
This  ought  is  mightier  than  all  other  forces  which 

[8] 


Science  and  Prayer 

impel  men  to  action.  This  distinction  of  right 
from  wrong,  and  the  oughtness  which  presses  a 
man,  as  with  the  superincumbent  weight  of  a 
mountain,  to  do  the  right,  constitute  the  essence 
of  moral  law.  Bentham,  in  his  utilitarian  argu- 
ment in  reference  to  morals,  was  so  troubled  with 
this  element  of  oughtness  that  he  declared  that 
the  word  ought  ^^  ought  to  be  banished  from  the 
vocabulary  of  morals.''  From  the  inexorable 
necessities  of  his  own  being  he  could  not  say  it 
in  any  other  way. 

Now,  when  we  come  to  talk  of  the  laws  of  the 
material  universe,  we  have  in  mind  a  very  differ- 
ent conception.  No  oughtness  appears.  We  mean 
simply  the  processes  of  nature, — the  ways  in 
which  things,  so  far  as  the  observation  of  men  has 
extended,  come  to  pass.  "When  the  cold  reaches 
a  given  degree  of  intensity,  water  freezes;  we 
say  that  that  is  a  material  law.  When  the  higher 
temperature  of  spring  comes,  the  ice  melts  and 
vegetation  starts;  we  call  these  processes  laws. 
When  vapor  freezes,  it  takes  the  form  of  crystals ; 
and  this  process  we  call  a  material  law.  The  pro- 
foundest  scientist  cannot  carry  his  analysis  any 
further  .  He  knows  more  than  a  clown  or  a  child 
only  because,  by  study  and  extended  observation, 
he  has  seen  more  of  the  processes  of  nature,  and 
has  generalized  and  grouped  them.  In  any  single 
example,  he  can  only  see  what  the  ignorant  may 
see,— that  a  law  of  nature  is  simply  the  way  in 
which  a  thing,  in  the  material  world  or  in  the 
world  of  mind,  is  done. 

[9] 


Science  and  Prayer 

Now,  since  in  these  varied  laws  of  nature  we 
see  that  certain  useful  ends  are  met,  the  sugges- 
tion inevitably  comes  that  intelligence  established 
these  laws  or  now  works  out  these  varied  and 
beneficent  processes.  Since  a  law  of  nature  is 
nothing  more  than  the  way  in  which  a  certain 
thing  is  accomplished,  it  is  assuredly  not  contrary 
to  anything  which  science  has  discovered  to  con- 
sider the  laws  of  nature  simply  as  God's  ways 
of  doing  things.  Such  a  supposition  does  no  vio- 
lence to  scientific  method,  while  it  provides  a  suit- 
able cause  for  the  beneficent  element  in  these  laws. 
If  it  is  asked  why  these  processes,  or  laws  of 
nature,  on  the  supposition  that  they  are  God's 
ways  of  working,  are  fixed,  invariable,  we  find  a 
ready  answer  in  the  biblical  revelation  of  God's 
nature  and  character.  Being  absolutely  perfect, 
when,  for  the  first  time,  he  did  anything,  he  did 
it  with  absolute  perfection.  When  a  thing  is  per- 
fect, there  can  be  no  change  for  the  better,  since 
nothing  can  be  any  more  than  perfect;  and  God 
cannot  change  the  processes  of  nature,  so  that 
they  would  be  in  any  sense  imperfect,  since  that 
would  be  a  contradiction  of  his  own  absolute  per- 
fection. We  find  therefore  in  the  character  of 
God,  as  presented  to  us  in  the  Bible,  the  sufficient 
reason  for  the  immutability  of  natural  laws,  when 
we  regard  them  as  simply  his  methods  of  acting. 
So  when  David  sang,  *'The  Lord  also  thundered 
in  the  heavens,  and  the  highest  gave  his  voice," 
he  did  not  even  in  his  imaginative  song  utter 
anything  opposed  to  the  strictest  science ;  in  such 

[10] 


Science  and  Prayer 

diction,  poetry  and  science  *^met  together'*  and 
** kissed  each  other.*'  And  since  these  processes 
of  nature  may,  without  the  slightest  conflict  with 
science,  be  considered  simply  the  actings  of  God 
immanent  in  his  own  creation,  it  is  not  impossible 
that,  working  by  these  unchangeable  processes, 
he  may  answer  the  prayers  of  his  children. 

And  it  will  not  be  difficult  for  us  to  discover 
by  analogy  how,  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  fact 
of  the  immutability  of  natural  laws,  God  may  do 
this.  The  perfect  confidence  of  men  in  the  fixity 
of  natural  laws  underlies  all  their  acts.  Without 
such  confidence  they  never  would  construct  or 
work  the  simplest  machinery.  They  would  not 
dare  to  sail  lake  or  ocean,  lest  by  a  change  of 
natural  laws  their  vessel  should  suddenly  sink 
rather  than  float.  But  because  they  know  these 
laws  to  be  immutable,  they  use  them  with  confi- 
dence in  all  their  manifold  activities.  Now,  from 
analogy,  we  are  able  to  see  how  the  immutability 
of  natural  laws,  instead  of  being  an  obstacle  stand- 
ing in  the  way  of  God's  answering  prayer,  mayl 
become  rather  the  very  means  by  which  he  an- 
swers every  prayer  of  faith.  Men,  because  these 
natural  laws  are  unchangeable,  are  able,  by  the 
adjustment  to  each  other  of  even  a  very  few  of 
them,  to  secure  the  most  wonderful  results.  The 
adjustment  to  each  other  of  a  few  immutable  laws 
gives  us  the  steam-engine,  which  moves  most  of 
the  machinery  of  the  civilized  nations.  The  adjust- 
ment of  a  few  immutable  laws  drives  our  great 
merchant  ships  around  the  globe.    The  bird  which 

[11] 


Science  and  Prayer 

darts  upward  into  the  air  and  onward  through  it 
with  such  great  velocity,  instinctively  adjusts  a 
few  unchangeable  laws  to  bring  about  this  sur- 
prising result.  If  men,  with  their  limited  knowl- 
edge, and  the  birds  of  the  air  by  instinct,  can  use 
unchangeable  laws  to  reach  such  marvelous  and 
varied  results,  can  not  God,  who  established  these 
laws,  so  adjust  them  to  each  other  as  to  answer 
every  true  prayer  breathed  into  his  earl  Immu- 
tability of  law,  then,  does  not  make  prayer  even 
for  physical  blessings  a  folly,  but  rather  suggests 
to  us  how  God,  because  of  this  very  immutability, 
may  answer  every  true  petition. 

Then  we  are  never  to  forget  that  at  the  best 
we  know  but  little.  La  Place  is  reported  to  have 
said,  just  before  he  died,  ^^What  we  do  not  know 
is  enormous.''  We  have  discovered,  by  centuries 
of  toil,  a  few  natural  laws.  As  the  circle  of  our 
knowledge  has  widened,  we  have  become  aware  of 
still  greater  regions  just  beyond,  that  no  human 
mind  has  ever  explored.  And  in  the  future,  as 
our  knowledge  extends,  we  shall  ever  grow  more 
and  more  keenly  alive  to  the  infinite  reaches  of 
being  and  of  law  which  we  do  not  know.  What 
we  know  of  the  laws  of  the  material  universe  com- 
pared with  what  we  do  not  know,  is  like  the  hand- 
ful of  sand  in  the  hour-glass  compared  with  the 
vast  Sahara.  If  man,  with  his  very  limited  knowl- 
edge of  unchangeable  laws,  can  by  their  adjust- 
ment to  each  other  achieve  so  much,  who  shall 
limit  in  his  achievements  Him  who  understands 
all  laws,  and  who,  by  the  simple  act  of  his  will,  can 

[12] 


Science  and  Prayer 

adjust  these  myriads  of  laws  to  each  other  so  as 
to  satisfy  the  cry  of  every  one  of  his  creatures? 
Moreover,  those  who  have  arrayed  science  and 
prayer  against  each  other  have  sometimes  com- 
placently sneered  at  those  who  still  believe  that 
God  answers  prayer  as  being  honest  enough,  but 
pitiably  unscientific.  Now,  such  men  ought  not  to 
complain,  if  we  demand  of  them  what  they  demand 
of  others.  No  theory  designed  to  account  for  any 
class  of  phenomena  is  worth  anything  unless  it 
takes  into  consideration  all  the  known  facts  and 
makes  suitable  provision  for  them.  Those  who 
contend  that,  on  the  basis  of  the  immutability  of 
natural  laws,  it  is  folly  to  pray,  have  never  in 
their  theory  made  full  provision  for  the  entire 
content  of  the  fact  of  prayer.  If  one  thing  in 
reference  to  man  has  been  established  beyond 
every  other,  it  is  the  fact  that  he  has  distinctively 
a  religious  nature.  Wherever  found,  be  he  savage 
or  civilized,  he  is  religious.  He  universally  has  his 
places  of  worship,  rude  or  artistic;  he  has  his 
shrines  and  altars,  and  offers  to  his  god  or  gods 
sacrifices  bloody  or  unbloody.  Heathen,  Moham- 
medan, and  Christian  alike  pray.  Even  men  who 
declare  themselves  atheists  will  sometimes  pray, 
when  they  get  into  a  pinch ;  and  in  their  highest 
and  best  moods  will  utter  words  of  praise  to  Him 
whom  they  declare  not  to  exist.  Now,  a  fact  so 
universal  as  prayer  must  be  in  some  way  ac- 
counted for.  Does  it  not  carry  the  evidence  in 
itself  that  there  is  an  answer  to  it!  We  find  it 
to  be  a  general  law  of  our  being  that  satisfaction 

[13] 


Science  and  Prayer 

is  provided  for  every  natural  and  right  desire. 
We  hunger, — without  us  are  manifold  harvests 
and  barns  bursting  with  plenty ;  we  thirst, — with- 
out us  are  lakes,  bubbling  fountains  and  purling 
brooks;  we  long  for  the  beautiful, — without  us 
in  myriads  of  objects  is  beauty  more  subtle  and 
delicate  than  was  ever  expressed  by  the  brush 
of  the  painter  or  the  pen  of  the  poet;  we  crave 
the  sublime, — and  cataract,  and  mountain,  and 
heaving  ocean,  and  the  awful  storm,  answer  the 
inward  desire.  As,  in  these  cases,  the  hunger,  the 
thirst,  the  longing,  and  the  craving  are  evidences 
within  us  of  the  satisfaction  without  us,  so  prayer, 
the  deep  longing  or  craving  of  man's  religious 
j  nature,  carries  with  it  the  decisive  evidence  that 
there  is  without  an  answer  which  will  meet  and 
satisfy  it.  If  this  be  not  so,  then  for  our  physical 
and  intellectual  cravings  answers  beautiful  and 
complete  have  been  provided,  while  the  cravings 
of  our  higher  religious  nature  have  been  left  un- 
cared  for  and  unsatisfied.  This  a  school-boy  could 
not  fail  to  stamp  as  the  rankest  absurdity.  Prayer 
is  either  answered,  or  else  those  desires  which 
impel  man  to  come  into  communion  with  God  are, 
of  all  the  desires  of  his  being,  alone  a  mockery. 
Is  any  one  credulous  enough  to  believe  that? 

Any  sound  theory  of  prayer  must  also  take  into 
account  another  fact,  namely,  that  of  testimony. 
Men  affirm  that  God  has  heard  their  prayers. 
From  the  number  of  witnesses  let  us  exclude  all 
those  who  might  reasonably  be  accused  of  fanat- 
icism ;  yet  we  have  failed  to  see  why  the  testimony 

[14] 


Science  and  Prayer 

of  a  fanatical  Christian  is  not  just  as  trustworthy 
as  that  of  a  fanatical  skeptic.  We  will  exclude, 
too,  all  witnesses  who  may  be  reasonably  sus- 
pected of  having  had  collusion  with  each  other. 
Then  we  will  sift  the  testimony  of  the  clear- 
headed, unbiased  witnesses,  striking  out  every 
statement  which  may,  with  the  slightest  show  of 
reason,  be  considered  as  an  illusion  of  honest  but 
mistaken  men.  Even  then,  the  remaining  testi- 
mony, gathered  from  the  witnesses  of  all  time, 
all  bearing  on  this  one  point,  would,  if  printed  in 
books,  make  a  vast  library.  Can  any  just  theory 
in  reference  to  prayer  omit  a  fact  of  such  mag- 
nitude? Would  it  be  scientific  to  ignore  all  this 
testimony  of  the  purest  and  best  men  that  ever 
lived?  If  their  testimony  is  declared  fanatical, 
would  that  not  prove  too  much,  if  mere  assertion 
ever  proves  anything?  Would  it  not  show  that 
the  fanaticism  of  the  ages  has  contained  within 
itself  the  godliness,  the  purity,  the  virtue  of  the 
ages  ?  No,  there  is  no  way  in  which  we  can  scien- 
tifically thrust  such  testimony  out  of  sight.  It 
stands  as  solid  as  granite,  as  clear  as  crystal,  and 
he  who  would  be  scientific  in  handling  the  fact  of 
prayer  must  take  it  up  into  his  theory  and  account 
for  it. 

If  it  should  be  said  that  prayer  and  its  supposed 
answer  is  simply  a  happy  coincidence,  we  might 
grant  that  in  one,  or  two,  or  three  cases  it  may 
be,  and  do  no  despite  to  science.  But  take  fifty 
cases,  or  five  hundred,  or  ten  thousand,  and  de- 
clare that  in  every  case  we  have  only  a  lucky  coin- 

[15] 


Science  and  Prayer 

cidence,  so  large  a  number  of  coincidences  would 
tax  our  credulity  far  more  than  to  admit  that  God 
in  reality  answered  the  prayers.  Such  a  multi- 
tude of  c*oincidences  would  be  vastly  more  mys- 
terious than  the  fact  that  thousands  of  men  cried 
unto  the  Lord,  and  he,  in  mercy  and  love,  heard 
their  cries  and  satisfied  their  wants.  By  no  device 
can  we,  with  a  strict  scientific  spirit  and  method, 
brush  aside  the  vast  mass  of  testimony  that  God 
has  answered  prayer. 

Our  argument  in  brief,  then,  is  this :  from  any 
proper  definition  of  science  and  prayer,  we  can- 
not discover  anything  within  them  that  brings 
them  into  conflict.  Those  who  rule  out  prayer 
for  physical  blessings  on  the  ground  of  the  immu- 
tability of  natural  laws  must,  if  consistent,  rule 
out  prayer  for  spiritual  blessings  also,  since  law 
is  as  fixed  in  the  realm  of  spirit  as  in  the  realm 
of  matter.  Confusion  often  results  from  a  lack 
of  precision  in  the  use  of  the  term  law — a  physical 
law  being,  to  our  observation,  only  a  process  in 
the  material  world;  but  as  we  see  that  in  the 
process  beneficent  ends  are  reached,  that  fact  sug- 
gests that  the  process  may  be  simply  God^s 
method  of  acting.  By  these  very  processes,  there- 
fore, God  may  answer  prayer.  As  men,  by  ad- 
justing to  each  other  the  few  immutable  laws  of 
the  material  world  which  they  have  laboriously 
learned,  reach  all  the  varied  and  marvelous  results 
which  we  see  produced  by  mechanical  contriv- 
ances, so  God,  who  works  in  and  through  all  the 
laws  of  his  universe,  by  their  adjustment,  without 

[16] 


Science  and  Prayer 

in  the  slightest  degree  infringing  them,  may  an- 
swer every  prayer  of  his  people.  Any  truly  scien- 
tific theory  of  prayer  must  account  for  the  fact 
of  prayer,  and  deal  dispassionately  with  the  mass 
of  testimony  given,  down  through  all  the  ages,  that 
God  has,  in  almost  innumerable  instances,  an- 
swered prayer. 

After  a  calm,  dispassionate  examination  of  all 
that  has  been  written  by  materialistic  scientists 
about  the  impotence  and  folly  of  prayer,  we  may, 
without  the  slightest  danger  of  being  unscientific, 
still  believe  and  obey  Him  who,  speaking  with 
unerring  wisdom,  said,  **  Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given 
you." 


[17] 


THE  ATONEMENT  THROUGH  SYMPATHY 


THE  ATONEMENT  THROUGH  SYMPATHY 

Walter  Henry  Pater,  in  his  Marius  the  Epi- 
curean* says,  **The  constituent  practical  differ- 
ence between  men''  is  ** their  capacity  for  sym- 
pathy." He  who  is  able  to  apprehend  most  clearly 
the  wretchedness  of  those  in  distress,  to  feel  their 
sorrows  most  keenly,  to  go  down  to  the  lowest 
depths  of  their  misery  and  suffer  with  them,  is 
rightly  esteemed  the  greatest.  Whenever  such  a 
man  appears,  the  multitude  hails  him  as  a  hero. 

Now,  it  is  a  matter  of  common  observation  that 
those  who  are  purest  and  best  most  deeply  sym- 
pathize with  those  in  misery.  To  be  sure  some  who 
have  gone  to  great  lengths  in  sin  and  crime  are 
at  times  touched  with  pity,  when  they  see  their 
friends  or  neighbors  suddenly  overwhelmed  in 
some  dire  calamity.  But  such  cases  are  excep- 
tional. One  of  the  most  awful  effects  of  sin  is 
to  harden  the  heart,  to  blunt  the  moral  sensibili- 
ties. It  dries  up  the  fountain  of  sympathy  and 
tends  to  make  men  dead  to  the  woes  of  others, 
while  the  spiritual  renewal  of  men  and  their  con- 
sequent fellowship  with  God  in  Christ  gives  them 
an  ever  enlarging  capacity  for  sympathy.  And 
the  more  Christlike  they  become  the  more  broad 
and  profound  is  their  capacity  to  suffer  with 
others. 

*  Vol.  II,  p.  203. 

[21] 


Science  and  Prayer 

But  Christ  himself  is  absolutely  perfect  both  in 
knowledge  and  in  compassion.  He  not  only  appre- 
hends all  the  miseries  of  our  race,  but  through  his 
sympathy  and  incarnation  is  identified  with  all 
who  suffer.  Not  a  sigh  bursts  from  the  lips  of 
any  one  however  obscure  that  he  does  not  hear; 
not  a  tear  stains  any  human  cheek  that  he  does 
not  see;  there  is  not  a  quivering  nerve,  nor  a 
throbbing  brain,  nor  an  aching  heart  that  does 
not  stir  the  depths  of  his  divine  compassion. 
Since  he  is  the  God-man  he  bears  on  his  infinite 
yet  human  heart  the  infirmities,  the  distresses, 
the  manifold  woes  of  the  whole  sinful  human 
race. 

Let  us  now  note  briefly  some  references  in  the 
Gospels  to  his  wonderful  sympathy.  Again  and 
again  we  are  told  that  he  was  moved  with  com- 
passion, or  that  he  had  compassion  on  those  in 
distress.  His  miracles  of  healing  were  but  the 
outflow  of  his  sympathy.  Seeing  misery  and  being 
conscious  that  he  had  the  power  to  alleviate  it, 
his  pity  spontaneously  expressed  itself  in  healing 
disease,  cleansing  lepers,  casting  out  demons,  and 
at  times  in  raising  the  dead,  that  he  might  thereby 
wipe  away  the  tears  of  the  bereaved.  In  the  Gos- 
pels, we  have  specific  accounts  of  scarcely  a  hun- 
dredth part  of  these  miracles  of  mercy.  The 
great  mass  of  them  are  barely  indicated  by  gen- 
eral statements,  as  in  Mark  1 :  32-34. 

Later  in  his  ministry,  when  in  controversy  with 
the  Pharisees,  Christ  appealed  to  the  signs 
wrought  by  him  as  a  conclusive  proof  of  his  divine 

[22] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

mission,  but  he  did  not  work  them  just  to  show 
that  he  was  sent  by  God.  They  were  but  the 
natural  expression  of  his  tender  sympathy  with 
those  in  sharp  distress.  Being  so  understood, 
they  become  all  the  stronger  evidence  that  Jesus 
was  sent  by  his  and  our  Father  to  be  the  Saviour 
of  lost  men. 

But  the  religious  condition  of  the  multitudes, 
blighted  by  sin,  and  crushed  under  the  burdens 
laid  upon  them  by  their  professed  teachers,  spe- 
cially broke  up  the  fountain  of  his  compassion, 
^^  because  they  were  distressed  and  scattered,  as 
sheep  not  having  a  shepherd. '^ 

At  times  his  sympathy  with  those  in  trouble 
vented  itself  in  tears.  But  Jesus  was  no  weakling ; 
he  was  the  most  manly  of  men.  No  one  ever 
exceeded  him  in  downright  courage.  In  the  teeth 
of  adverse  public  opinion,  he  always  calmly  and 
resolutely  said  and  did  what  he  knew  to  be  right. 
The  threats  of  those  in  authority,  clothed  with 
all  the  power  of  government,  never  caused  him 
to  swerve  a  hair^s  breadth  from  the  straight  line 
of  duty.  When  no  one  at  Jerusalem  cared  or 
dared  to  cleanse  the  temple  from  mammon  and 
restore  it  to  spiritual  service,  he  did  it  single- 
handed  with  a  scourge  of  cords.  When,  standing 
under  oath  before  the  judges  of  the  Sanhedrin, 
he  knew  that  the  confession  of  the  truth  as  to  who 
he  was  would  nail  him  to  a  Eoman  cross,  without 
the  slightest  evasion  he  made  it.  He  not  only 
answered  the  question  put  to  him  by  the  high 
priest,  but  lifted  the  curtain  of  the  future  that 

[23] 


Science  and  Prayer 

his  august  questioner  might  catch  a  glimpse  of  his 
future  glory,  majesty  and  power.  But  his  cheeks 
that  never  paled  before  the  face  of  clay,  at  times, 
through  sympathy  for  others,  were  wet  with  tears. 
**  Jesus  wept.''  When  we  consider  who  he  was, 
these  two  words  are  the  sublimest  utterance  of 
all  literature.  He  came  to  Bethany,  where  lived 
three  of  his  dearest  friends,  Mary,  Martha  and 
Lazarus.  But  four  days  before,  Lazarus  had 
died ;  still  he  claimed  that  he  could  wake  him  out 
of  his  sleep.  So  he  went  with  the  grief -stricken 
sisters  towards  their  brother's  tomb,  and  his  sym- 
pathy with  them  was  so  profound  that  it  ex- 
pressed itself  in  trickling  tears. 

We  turn  from  this  touching  domestic  scene  to 
an  exhibition  of  Jesus'  sympathy  national  in  its 
scope.  He  was  going  up  to  Jerusalem  for  the  last 
time.  He  came  to  the  brow  of  Olivet.  The  city 
beyond  the  valley  of  the  Kedron  was  in  full  view 
— the  city  that  had  so  often  rejected  and  stoned 
to  death  God's  prophets,  and  now  had  rejected 
him,  and  was  about  to  demand  his  crucifixion  at 
the  hands  of  the  Gentiles.  He,  however,  seemed 
quite  oblivious  to  the  crowning  wrong  and  shame 
that  he  was  so  soon  to  suffer,  and,  without  a 
thought  of  self,  poured  out  the  full  tide  of  his 
sympathy  on  the  doomed  city.  As  he  looked  upon 
it,  he  could  not  suppress  his  tears. 

His  triumphal  entry  into  it  was  just  at  hand. 
Already  the  rejoicing  multitude  was  crying,  *'Ho- 
sanna  to  the  son  of  David:  Blessed  is  he  that 
Cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord :  Hosanna  in  the 

[24] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

highest.''  Already  they  were  strewing  palm- 
branches  and  their  loose-flowing  robes  in  his  path- 
way; but  his  ear  was  deaf  to  their  praises  and 
glad  shouts  of  welcome,  and  his  eye  was  blind  to 
the  splendid  pageant.  While  the  multitude  re- 
joiced, he  wept.  He  cried,  ^*If  thou  hadst  known 
in  this  day,  even  thou,  the  things  which  belong 
unto  peace ! ' '  Jesus  left  that  sentence  unfinished ; 
it  ended  in  silent  tears,  more  eloquent  than  words. 
After  a  little,  recovering  himself,  he  added ;  *  *  But 
now  they  are  hid  from  thine  eyes. ' ' 

To  be  sure,  in  his  cry  we  catch  the  note  of  fervid, 
national  patriotism.  As  a  Jewish  citizen,  if  noth- 
ing more,  the  impending  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem well  nigh  broke  his  heart.  His  emotional 
utterance  brings  to  mind  the  plaintive  words  of 
the  Jewish  captives  in  Babylon: 

"If  I  forget  thee,  0  Jerusalem, 
Let  my  right  hand  forget  her  skill. 
Let  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth, 
If  I  remember  thee  not ; 
If  I  prefer  not  Jerusalem 
Above  my  chief  joy."     (Ps.  137.) 

.  But  while  the  patriotic  note  is  unmistakably 
heard  in  the  cry  of  Jesus,  it  is  but  a  sad  under- 
tone. The  spiritual  destruction  of  the  people  was 
the  thought  that  pierced  him  through  and  through. 
This  is  clear  from  his  cognate  cry,  twice  repeated. 
Comparatively  early  in  his  ministry,  when,  accord- 
ing to  Luke,  he  was  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  some 
Pharisees  warned  him  to  get  away,  since  Herod 
wished  to  kill  him.     But  in  spite  of  the  bloody 

[25] 


Science  and  Prayer 

threat,  he  determined  to  go  on  boldly  with  his 
work,  saying  that  ^4t  cannot  be  that  a  prophet 
perish  out  of  Jerusalem/'  Then  overwhelmed 
with  the  thought  of  the  inevitable  destruction  of 
the  city,  he  cried ;  ^  ^  0  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  that 
killeth  the  prophets,  and  stoneth  them  that  are 
sent  unto  thee !  how  often  would  I  have  gathered 
thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her 
own  brood  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not." 
Here  we  see  that  it  was  the  spiritual  destruction 
of  her  ^^ children"  that  stirred  the  deepest  depths 
of  his  sympathy. 

Once  more  the  same  cry  burst  from  his  lips. 
It  was  the  last  Passover  week.  Jesus  was  in 
Jerusalem.  He  delivered  a  remarkable  address 
both  to  his  disciples  and  to  the  Pharisees,  un- 
masking the  sins  of  the  latter  and  appealing  to 
his  followers  to  avoid  them.  In  this  speech  he 
pronounced  upon  the  chief  men  of  his  nation  seven 
woes  so  awful  that  they  sound  like  seven  thunders 
of  divine  judgment  in  the  midst  of  his  gospel  of 
grace.  But  even  these  terrible  words  pulsated 
with  his  love.  It  was  the  last  great  effort  of  Christ 
to  awaken  the  consciences  of  the  Pharisees  and 
win  them  to  himself,  so  the  thunder  of  his  wrath 
ended  in  a  divine  sob,  as  he  cried  *^0  Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem."  He  stood  within  the  walls  of  the 
sacred  city  when  he  uttered  for  the  second  time 
these  words.  It  was  the  headquarters  of  those 
whom  he  addressed  and  denounced  to  their  faces. 
^^ Verily,"  he  said,  **all  these  things  shall  come 
upon  this   generation,"   and   **thy  children"  is 

[26] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

again  the  burden  of  his  soul.  That  they  should 
reject  him,  their  Saviour,  for  whose  coming  they 
had  so  long  looked  and  perish  in  their  unbelief, 
broke  his  heart. 

But  his  matchless  sympathy  was  not  hemmed  in 
by  state  boundaries.  A  great  apostolic  writer 
says  that  ^4n  the  days  of  his  flesh,''  he  ** offered 
up  prayers  and  supplications  with  strong  crying 
and  tears,  unto  him  that  was  able  to  save  him  from 
death.''  These  words  evidently  portray  the  agony 
of  Christ  in  Gethsemane.  He  had  wept  over  Jeru- 
salem, which  was  the  life  and  heart  of  his  nation ; 
in  the  garden  he  now  wept  over  a  lost  world.  To 
save  it  he  resigned  himself  to  death,  with  all  that 
that  awful  word  signifies.  His  prayer,  that  he 
might  be  delivered  from  death,  was  answered  in 
his  complete  submission  to  the  divine  will,  which 
was  the  unmistakable  undertone  of  every  petition 
that  he  offered  in  Gethsemane,  **not  as  I  will,  but 
as  thou  wilt." 

Here,  just  before  his  death  on  the  cross,  we  see 
how  his  overflowing  sympathy  encircled  the  globe, 
embracing  all  nations,  kindreds  and  tongues.  In 
the  garden  and  on  the  cross  the  sin  of  our  race 
pressed  down  on  his  heart  like  the  superincum- 
bent weight  of  a  mountain.  He  sweat  great  drops 
of  blood.  He  cried  out,  but  it  was  the  strong  cry 
of  perfect  manhood.  Tears  coursed  down  his 
cheeks;  they  were  the  tears  of  the  Son  of  God 
and  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  they  expressed  the 
unbounded  love  of  God  for,  and  the  unfathomable 
sympathy  of  God  with,  man. 

[27] 


Science  and  Prayer 

But  he  himself  has  given  a  far  more  profound 
expression  of  his  tender,  brooding  sympathy  with 
all  men  than  has  fallen  from  the  lips  or  flowed 
from  the  pen  of  any  of  his  apostles.  He  was  con- 
sciously near  the  close  of  his  earthly  life.  Geth- 
semane  lay  just  before  him;  a  little  beyond  it 
was  the  cross.  To  his  disciples  he  had  more  than 
once  announced  his  death.  They  were  bewildered 
and  perplexed.  Not  apprehending  the  nature  of 
his  kingdom,  his  preannounced  death  seemed  to 
them  irretrievable  disaster.  He  sat  on  the  Mount 
of  Olives.  The  disciples,  filled  with  apprehension 
and  fear,  gathered  around  him.  Full  of  pity  for 
them,  he  tried  to  enlighten  them,  to  tell  them  what 
his  Kingdom  was  and  what  his  going  away  from 
them  meant.  He  took  them  beyond  the  dispensa- 
tion which  by  his  ministry  had  been  ushered  in 
to  the  time  when  he  shall  come  in  his  glory  to 
judge  all  men.  He  drew  before  them  a  picture 
of  the  general  judgment,  so  clear,  so  simple,  so 
sublime  that  it  has  entered  into  and  shaped  the 
thought  of  the  whole  Christian  era  in  reference 
to  the  future  state  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked. 
And  the  crown  of  his  matchless  statement  is  the 
reply  of  the  Judge  to  the  humble  righteous,  who 
are  unable  to  recall  the  good  deeds  that  he  declares 
they  have  done  to  him.  **  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  one  of  these  my  breth- 
ren, even  these  least,  ye  did  it  unto  me.'^  He  so 
completely  identifies  himself  with  them,  that  he 
who  feeds  one  of  them  feeds  him,  he  that  clothes 
one  of  them  clothes  him,  he  who  takes  a  homeless 

[28] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

one  under  his  roof  and  cares  for  him,  shelters  and 
cares  for  Christ  himself;  he  who  honors  one  of 
his  brethren  honors  him;  he  who  neglects  or  de- 
spises one  of  them,  even  the  least,  neglects  or 
despises  him. 

But  how  is  such  identification  effected?  how 
brought  about  I  Not  by  extinguishing  personality, 
not  by  monism,  which  teaches  that  the  universe, 
man  and  God  are  one  substance;  which  so  oblit- 
erates personality  as  to  destroy  personal  respon- 
sibility and  accountability.  For  while  all  monists 
are  not  pantheists,  all  monism  is  pantheism.  But 
the  great  Teacher,  while  identifying  himself  with 
his  people,  is  still  their  Judge,  and  calls  them 
to  account  for  what  they  have,  and  have  not 
done. 

But  what  did  Jesus  mean  by  **my  brethren' ' I 
what  do  these  words  include?  None  will  doubt 
that  Christ  included  in  the  phrase,  **my  breth- 
ren,'* his  own  followers.  They  bear  his  likeness, 
possess  his  spirit  and  by  virtue  of  their  regenera- 
tion or  re-creation  are  his  sons  and  daughters. 
The  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  probably 
had  in  mind  the  words  of  Jesus,  on  which  we 
comment,  when  he  wrote,  *^Both  he  that  sancti- 
fieth  and  they  that  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one; 
for  which  cause  he,*'  in  his  glorified  state,  ^4s  not 
ashamed,"  or  delights,  **to  call  them  brethren.*' 
Other  Scriptures  tell  us  that  believers  are  in 
Christ  and  Christ  is  in  them;  so  that  whatever 
is  done  to  them  is  done  to  him.  On  this  basis  the 
glorified  Saviour  appealed  to  Saul  of  Tarsus,  who 

[29] 


Science  and  Prayer 

was  cruelly  maltreating  some  of  the  early  disci- 
ples, *  ^  Saul,  Saul,  why  persecute  thou  me  ? ' ' 

But  did  not  Christ  include  in  the  phrase,  *^my 
brethren,"  more  than  his  undoubted  followers? 
did  he  not  designate  by  it  all  men?  Those  that 
may  differ  on  this  point  still  agree  on  some  fun- 
damental facts.  They  alike  hold  that  God  made 
man  in  his  own  image,  and  that,  on  the  ground 
of  spiritual  likeness,  man  was  in  the  beginning 
God's  child.  But  since  man  by  sin  lost  his  spirit- 
ual likeness  to  God  and  his  fellowship  with  him, 
he  imperatively  needs  to  be  created  anew  by  the 
Spirit.  By  this  re-creation  the  sinner  is  restored 
to  right  relation  to  God,  to  likeness  to  God,  to 
fellowship  with  God,  to  the  glad  recogni- 
tion that  God  is  his  Father  and  the  joyful 
consciousness  that  he  is  God's  child.  On 
the  basis  of  creation  man  is  a  child  of  God,  by 
his  re-creation  in  Christ  Jesus  he  is  brought  to  see 
this,  and  to  act  in  conformity  to  it.  Jesus  taught 
Nicodemus  that  when  he  should  be  born  from 
above  by  the  Spirit  he  then  could  see  the  kingdom 
of  God;  so  a  sinner  by  a  spiritual  rebirth  or  re- 
creation comes  to  see  or  apprehend  that  God  is 
his  Father  and  that  he  is  God's  child.  But 
whether  he  apprehends  it  or  not  the  fact  remains 
that  by  creation  man  was  made  God's  child  and 
Christ's  brother.  If  this  be  true,  then  the  words 
of  Christ,  **my  brethren,"  include  not  only  regen- 
erated and  saved  souls  but  all  men. 

This  conclusion  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the 
fact  that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  both  the  Son  of  God 

[30] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

and  the  Son  of  man;  identified  with  God  on  the 
one  hand  and  with  man  on  the  other.  In  Matt. 
25,  when  proclaiming  the  general  judgment,  he 
asserts  that  he,  ''the  Son  of  man,''  is  to  be  the 
judge  of  all  men.  When  in  conflict  with  the  Phar- 
isees, John  5,  he  made  the  same  claim  that  he  was 
to  be  the  judge  of  all,  and  that  his  authority  to 
execute  judgment  is  based  on  the  fact  that  ''he 
is  the  Son  of  man. ' '  Having  the  nature  of  men, 
and  being  thereby  identified  with  them,  he  is  fitted 
to  be  their  judge.  It  is  in  announcing  his  judg- 
ment of  all  men  that  he  uses  the  phrase,  "my 
brethren,''  making  it  strongly  probable  that  he 
included  in  it  every  individual  of  our  race. 

If  by  "my  brethren"  the  disciples  of  Christ  are 
alone  meant,  then  if  a  man  has  compassion  on  a 
heathen,  or  on  one  depraved  and  vile  in  a  Chris- 
tian land,  and  helps  him  when  in  distress,  his  act 
of  mercy  cannot  be  adjudged  as  done  to  Christ, 
although  it  may  be  an  act  of  greater  charity,  of 
profounder  self-abnegation  than  if  it  had  been 
expended  on  a  lovable  Christian.  It  may  have 
required  the  very  highest  possible  expression  of 
love, — ^love  to  an  enemy.  To  limit  Christ's  words, 
"my  brethren,"  to  his  followers  would  exclude  the 
Good  Samaritan  from  the  blessing  of  having  done 
his  compassionate  work  to  the  Lord.  Nor  can 
we  forget  that  Jesus  himself  was  most  deeply 
touched  with  the  condition  of  the  godless;  his 
own  countrymen,  wandering  from  God  without 
any  true  and  competent  teachers,  aroused  his 
deepest  sympathy.     It  was  apostate  Jerusalem 

[31] 


Science  and  Prayer 

that  broke  up  the  fountain  of  his  tears;  a  lost 
world  wrung  out  his  heart's  blood  in  Gethsemane ; 
and  did  he  by  the  phrase,  *^my  brethren/'  exclude 
all,  who,  like  him,  weep  over,  and  toil  to  save,  the 
lost,  from  the  ineffable  blessing  of  being  assured 
that  they  have  done  it  unto  him?  Shall  Judson's 
years  of  sympathetic  toil,  before  even  one  idolater 
savingly  received  his  message,  be  regarded  as  not 
done  to  Christ,  while  what  he  thereafter  did  to 
his  saved  brother  must  be  so  regarded?  Is  it 
not  more  reasonable  to  place  in  the  category  of 
Christ's  brethren  all  that  wear  the  human  form, 
and  conclude  that  he  regards  whatever  good  we 
may  do  to  mortal  man  as  done  to  him? 

Growing  out  of  this,  how  mighty  is  the  motive 
to  treat  courteously,  kindly,  justly,  yea  more,  to 
love,  and  to  sympathize  with,  even  the  least,  the 
most  ignorant,  the  most  depraved  of  our  fellow 
men.  Whatever  we  do  to  any  one  of  them,  we 
do  to  the  eternal  Lord  of  us  all.  How  this  match- 
less teaching  of  Jesus  exalts  man  as  such!  How 
inconceivably  sacred  it  reveals  man's  person 
to  be! 

Now,  if  we  make  no  mistake,  the  fact  so  clearly 
taught  in  the  Scriptures  that  Christ  through  his 
sympathy  and  incarnation  is  identified  with  our 
race,  solves  in  a  reasonable,  natural  way  some 
of  the  profoundest  facts  connected  with  our 
redemption. 

First,  Christ's  suffering,  since  he  was  sinless, 
has  always  been  a  baffling  mystery.  On  the  sur- 
face of  things,  so  far  as  our  observation  and 

[32] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

experience  extend,  sin  and  suffering  are  always 
indissolubly  yoked  together.  Where  men  are  most 
intensely  selfish  and  corrupt,  where  they  most 
unconstrainedly  indulge  their  bodily  appetites  and 
passions,  and,  regardless  of  the  rights  and  happi- 
ness of  others,  seek  their  ambitious  ends,  there, 
other  things  being  equal,  is  the  greatest  suffering. 
Where  there  is  most  of  purity,  the  largest  benev- 
olence, where  men  most  generally  seek  the  highest 
good  and  greatest  happiness  of  one  another,  there 
is  the  profoundest  peace  and  the  most  exultant 
3oy. 

But  while  such  general  statements  are  unques- 
tionably true,  they  make  no  distinction  between 
physical  and  mental  distress,  between  aching 
nerves  and  the  anguish  of  the  soul.  There  is,  to 
say  the  least,  bodily  suffering  where  there  is  no 
sin.  So  far  as  we  know,  beasts  do  not  and  cannot 
sin,  but  they  suffer  physically.  They  fight  and 
tear  each  other  with  tooth  and  claw,  and  devour 
each  other.  Men  maim  and  slay  them.  Outside 
of  their  cruel  internecine  strifes,  man  inflicts  upon 
them  their  greatest  distresses.  Nor  is  their  suf- 
fering wholly  physical ;  they  also  suffer  through 
fear.  Affrighted  they  flee  at  the  approach  of  their 
enemies,  whether  they  be  stronger  beasts  or  un- 
pitying  men.  If  they  suffer  in  mind  anything 
more  than  fear,  we  cannot  ascertain  it.  At  all 
events,  apart  from  sin,  here  is  suffering,  whose 
metes  and  bounds  we  cannot  very  clearly  discern. 

Moreover,  infants  suffer.  To  be  sure  they  are 
bound  up  with  our  sinful  race.    To  them,  by  the 

[33] 


Science  and  Prayer 

inexorable  law  of  heredity,  is  imparted  the  taint 
of,  and  the  tendency  to,  sin.  But  they  have  not 
voluntarily  transgressed  any  law.  And  while  they 
are  unlike  God,  they  are  not  responsible  for  it. 
They  have  no  guilt,  yet  they  suffer.  Like  animals 
they  have  both  physical  distress  and  fear,  and 
sometimes  grieve  on  account  of  neglect.  Beyond 
this  we  cannot  trace  their  suffering. 

Frankly  and  fully  taking  into  account  these 
incontrovertible  facts  in  reference  to  the  suffer- 
ing of  sinless  beasts  and  guiltless  infants,  we  will 
now  examine,  as  thoroughly  as  we  can,  the  vast 
and  difficult  subject  of  the  sufferings  of  the  spot- 
less Christ. 

We  first  naturally  turn  to  his  temptations  or 
trials  arising  from  poverty,  hunger,  thirst  and 
weariness,  from  the  artfully  seductive  suggestions 
of  the  devil,  from  ambition,  from  unjust  and  cruel 
usage,  and  from  the  bitter  taunts  of  his  insolent 
foes.  He  was,  says  the  author  of  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  *^one  that  hath  been  in  all  points 
tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin.''  (Heb. 
4:15.)  **For  in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered 
being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  succor  them  that  are 
tempted.''   (2:18.) 

To  these  ordinary  trials  of  Jesus,  we  must  add 
the  manifold  woes  and  distresses  of  men,  taken 
up  by  him  through  sympathy  into  his  perfect  mind 
and  heart.  "While  we,  on  account  of  the  deaden- 
ing by  sin  of  our  moral  sensibilities,  can,  at  the 
best  but  partially  feel  the  miseries  of  others,  he, 
the   immaculate   Christ,  through   sympathy  felt 

[34] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

them  in  all  their  fulness  and  keenness.  With  this 
fact  in  mind  let  us  reverently  look  in  upon  the 
mystery  of  Christ's  agony  in  Gethsemane. 

The  first  thing  that  arrests  our  attention  is  that 
his  suffering  was  not  physical,  except  so  far  as 
his  body  suffered  through  its  vital  connection  with 
his  mind.  No  hard  hand  of  violence  had  yet  been 
laid  upon  him.  Toward  midnight,  he  went  to  the 
garden  or  park  with  the  eleven.  As  he  entered 
it,  he  felt  within  his  soul  the  mysterious,  rising, 
surging  tides  of  woe.  "When  in  great  mental  dis- 
tress, men  often  desire  to  be  alone,  or  with  those 
with  whom  they  are  in  closest  intimacy.  Jesus 
therefore  said  to  his  disciples,  ' '  Sit  ye  here,  while 
I  go  yonder  and  pray.  * '  Already  his  distress  was 
so  acute  that  he  felt  that  he  could  be  relieved  only 
by  pouring  his  bursting  heart  into  the  infinite, 
compassionate  heart  of  his  Father.  But  also 
craving  human  sympathy,  he  chose  three  disciples, 
in  whom  he  probably  most  confided,  to  go  with 
him  farther  into  the  garden,  where  they  might 
be  beyond  ear-shot  of  the  rest.  As  they  walked 
on  these  disciples  saw,  even  in  the  moonlight,  that 
the  face  of  their  Lord  was  clouded  with  inexpres- 
sible sadness,  that  his  eyes  betokened  strange 
amazement,  and  that  he  was  sorely  troubled.  He 
evidently  marked  their  anxious  solicitude  for  him 
and,  in  explanation  of  the  woeful  expression  of 
his  face,  said,  *'My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful, 
even  unto  death. '  *  Then  longing  for  human  sym- 
pathy on  the  one  hand  and  for  divine  help  on  the 
other,  he  said  to  the  three  disciples,  ^*  Abide  ye 

[35] 


Science  and  Prayer 

here  and  watch  with  me;''  then  he  **went  forward 
a  little,"  and  falling  on  his  face,  prayed,  ''My 
Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  away 
from  me :  nevertheless,  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou 
wilt."  He  thus  poured  out  his  soul  three  times, 
returning,  at  the  close  of  both  the  first  and  second 
agonizing  petitions  to  the  three  disciples,  to  whom 
he  appealed  for  sympathy.  His  agony  of  spirit 
was  unprecedented,  marvelous,  matchless.  His 
body  betokened  it.  As  he  prayed,  Luke  says,  ''his 
sweat  became  as  it  were  great  drops  of  blood, 
falling  down  upon  the  ground." 

How  can  we  account  for  such  excruciating  suf- 
fering of  soul  in  the  spotless  Son  of  God?  Some 
have  taken  the  superficial  ground  that  he  shrank 
with  unutterable  horror  from  death  on  a  Eoman 
cross ;  that  in  view  of  it  he  agonized  in  prayer, 
shed  iDitter  tears  and  sweat  blood.  There  is  not, 
however,  a  scintilla  of  evidence  in  the  Gospels  that 
he  ever  feared  mere  physical  death.  Such  a  view 
makes  a  coward  of  him,  makes  him  in  sturdy 
manhood  less  than  hosts  even  of  his  weakest  dis- 
ciples, who,  out  of  fidelity  to  him,  have  endured 
deaths  more  painful  than  that  of  the  cross,  with- 
out complaint  or  even  a  tremor,  yea  more,  some- 
times with  songs  of  triumph  on  their  lips.  Such 
a  baseless,  unworthy  view  of  our  Lord  need  not 
further  detain  us. 

Moreover,  in  explanation  of  Jesus'  agony  in  the 
garden  conscience  is  of  course  excluded.  When, 
with  an  unclouded  mind,  a  wicked  man  approaches 
death,  his  past  life,  deeply  stained  by  sin,  stands 

[36] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

vividly  before  him.  Conscience  wakes  from  its 
torpor  and  stings  him;  remorse  bites  him.  He 
begins  to  feel  the  gnawings  of  the  worm  that  dies 
not,  the  withering  touch  of  the  unquenchable  fire. 
But  Jesus  was  sinless.  He  never  prayed  for  for- 
giveness, because  he  did  not  need  it.  He  claimed 
that  he  always  did  what  pleased  the  Father.  He 
had  no  regret  for  any  thought  that  he  had  ever 
cherished,  for  any  word  that  he  had  ever  spoken, 
nor  for  any  deed  that  he  had  ever  done.  He 
looked  back  over  a  life  of  wonderful  beneficence. 
He  had  opened  blind  eyes,  unstopped  deaf  ears, 
loosed  dumb  tongues,  straightened  crippled  limbs, 
cleansed  loathed  lepers,  cast  out  demons,  raised 
the  dead,  dried  the  tears  of  mourners,  and 
preached  to  the  neglected  and  despised  poor  the 
good  news  of  God^s  love  to  all  men,  even  to  the 
meanest  of  them.  Yet,  while  knowing  his  absolute 
integrity,  and  having  the  unmistakable  approval 
of  his  conscience  and  of  his  Father,  his  suffering 
in  Gethsemane  was  so  great,  that  no  finite  intellect 
can  fathom  it.  The  only  possible  solution  of  it, 
it  seems  to  me,  is  found  in  Christ's  identification 
with  our  race.  His  sympathy  with  us  was  so  pro- 
found and  so  absolutely  perfect  that  he  felt  our 
sharpest  distresses  as  though  they  were  his  own. 
The  culmination  of  his  suffering  in  Gethsemane 
was  death.  He  said,  **My  soul  is  exceeding  sor- 
rowful, even  unto  death.''  But  what  did  he  mean 
by  death? 

In  whatever  order  of  being  death  occurs,  we 
find  that  it  is  a  separation.    When  a  plant  dies, 

[37] 


Science  and  Prayer 

what  we  call  its  life,  known  only  by  its  manifes- 
tation, is  separated  from  the  root,  stalk  and  leaf, 
which  consequently  wither  and  decay.  When  an 
animal  dies  life  is  separated  from  its  flesh,  blood 
and  bones,  which  then  soon  crumble  to  dust.  In 
the  same  way  man  as  animal  dies ;  but  he  is  both 
material  and  spiritual,  has  both  body  and  soul; 
is  linked  on  the  one  hand  to  the  beasts  that  perish, 
and  on  the  other  hand  to  God.  As  spirit  he  is 
made  to  live  in  fellowship  with  God.  But  when 
he  sins  his  union  with  God  ceases.  He  is  sepa- 
rated from  him,  and  that  separation  is  spiritual 
death,  death  in  its  essence ;  and  that  death  is  the 
penalty  of  sin.  When,  therefore,  Christ  declared 
that  he  was  sorrowful  even  unto  death,  he  spoke 
of  spiritual  death,  sorrowful  even  unto  separation 
from  God ;  sorrowful  because  through  his  divine 
sympathy  he  began  to  feel  the  awfulness  of  that 
separation;  began  to  know  by  experience  the 
fearful  misery  of  the  transgressor,  suffering 
the  penalty  due  to  sin.  Back  from  such  an  ex- 
perience he  shrank  with  ''strong  crying  and 
tears,  ^'  and  in  inconceivable  agony  prayed  that 
that  cup,  if  it  were  possible,  might  pass  away 
from  him. 

But  Gethsemane  and  the  cross  are  halves  of  one 
sphere.  Christ  ^s  experience  in  the  garden  reaches 
its  climax  on  Calvary.  In  the  one  we  have  his 
sorrow  even  unto  death,  unto  separation  from 
God,  on  the  other  his  appalling  cry,  ''My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  meV  Did  God 
forsake  him  I     He  never  forsakes  any  soul  that 

[38] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

sincerely  seeks  him,  however  imperfect  and  un- 
worthy that  soul  may  be.  Much  less  did  he  for- 
sake his  only  begotten  Son,  who  was  one  with 
him  and  always  perfectly  did  his  will.  How  then 
shall  we  interpret  this  amazing,  despairing  cry  of 
Christ? 

He  was  our  elder  brother;  he  had  our  nature 
and  our  experiences,  yet  without  sin.  And  he  had 
also  entered  into  a  profounder  and  more  intimate 
union  with  mankind  than  most  Christian  thinkers 
of  the  ages  have  ever  seemed  to  conceive.  His 
sympathy  with  men,  lost  in  sin,  was  perfect.  His 
heart  was  the  infinite  heart  of  God.  He  was  capa- 
ble of  taking  up  into  it  all  the  woes  of  our  sinful 
race.  And  in  his  unbounded  compassion  he  did 
not  fail  to  enter  fully  into  the  awful  experience 
of  those,  made  to  live  in  fellowship  with  God,  who 
yet  were  separated  from  him  by  their  transgres- 
sions. Through  his  divine  sympathy  with  them, 
he  felt  within  his  own  soul  all  their  woe.  And 
when  on  his  cross  he  cried,  ^^My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  thou  forsaken  me!^'  we  hear  in  those 
awful  words  the  wail  of  a  lost  race. 

Now,  the  only  possible  sense  in  which  the  sin- 
less Christ  could  bear  the  sins  of  men  is  that  he 
voluntarily  bore  the  penalty  justly  due  to  sin. 
And  this  penalty  was  not  laid  upon  him  from 
without.  We  have  no  evidence  of  any  mechanical 
arrangement  between  the  persons  of  the  triune 
God,  that  one  should  mete  out  the  penalty  of  sin, 
and  that  another,  called  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity,  should  receive  it.     On  the  contrary,  in 

[39] 


Science  and  Prayer 

the  most  natural  manner,  as  the  spontaneous  out- 
flow of  his  love  for  men  and  of  his  identifying 
sympathy  with  them,  he  fully  felt  in  himself,  on 
their  behalf,  the  awful  reality  of  their  spiritual 
death. 

This  view  furnishes  the  most  reasonable  ex- 
planation of  the  atonement.  Christ,  by  his  sym- 
pathetic suffering,  revealed,  as  he  could  have  done 
in  no  other  way,  the  depth  and  tenderness  of  the 
divine  love  for  sinful  men.  On  the  other  hand, 
his  soul-suffering  even  unto  death,  flowing  from 
his  perfect  sympathy  with  lost  men,  proclaims 
in  tones  clear  and  terrible  the  awfulness  and  inef- 
fable hatefulness  of  sin.  It  cost  the  sympathetic, 
sinless  Son  of  God  the  pangs  of  spiritual  death. 
All  the  hollow  depths  of  hell  seem  to  resound  in 
Christ's  appalling  cry  on  the  cross,  **My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  mef  Separa- 
tion from  God — all  that  there  is,  or  can  be,  in 
perdition  is  wrapped  up  in  that.  Forsaken  of 
God — hell  is  only  that  ^^writ  large.''  And  that 
is  the  bitter  fruit  of  sin. 

The  intensity  of  Christ's  suffering  for  us 
through  sympathy  is  confirmed  by  modern  scien- 
tific investigation,  which  has  shown  that  Christ 
probably  died  not  from  the  tortures  of  the  cross 
but  from  the  violence  of  emotion,  that  literally 
ruptured  the  walls  of  his  heart  and  filled  the  peri- 
cardium with  blood.  This  theory  alone  explains 
the  extravasated  blood,  separated  into  red  clot  and 
watery  serum,  that  poured  from  his  side  when 
pierced  with  a  spear.    Moreover  this  is  consonant 

[40] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

with  the  suddenness  of  his  death,  which  at  the  time 
puzzled  and  amazed  the  Roman  authorities.  Those 
crucified  usually  lived  from  twelve  hours  to  two 
or  three  days,  but  Christ  died  in  six  hours.  And 
when  death  came  he  was  still  physically  strong, 
as  is  shown  by  his  loud  cry  just  before  he  bowed 
his  head  and  gave  up  the  ghost.  He  died  not  from 
pain  of  body,  but  from  anguish  of  spirit.  Through 
sympathy  he  took  the  agony  of  a  sinful  world 
up  into  his  soul.  In  the  language  of  prophecy 
he  could  say,  *'The  reproaches  of  them  that  re- 
proach thee  are  fallen  on  me,''  ^^Eeproach  hath 
broken  my  heart.''  (Ps.  69:9,  20.)  (See  Dr. 
Stroud's  treatise,  ''On  the  Physical  Cause  of  the 
Death  of  Christ,"  also  Hanna's  ''The  Life  of  our 
Lord."  V.  p.  323  and  Appendix.) 

It  may  be  objected  that  this  view  of  Christ's 
atonement  robs  it  of  one  of  its  essential  elements; 
that  the  Scriptures  represent  him  as  suffering 
for  us  or  on  our  behalf ;  that  one  may  suffer  sym- 
pathetically with  another  without  suffering  for 
him.  True,  the  Bible  does  clearly  teach  that 
Christ  suffered  for  us,  yea  more,  that  he  suffered 
vicariously  for  us.  But  cannot  one  at  the  same 
time  suffer  both  with  and  for  another!  If  one 
suffers  with  another  in  distress,  does  not  that  fact 
cheer  and  help  him  who  is  in  distress?  Does  not 
suffering  with  another  naturally  culminate  in  suf- 
fering for  another! 

A  few  years  ago,  a  man  strolling  along  the  shore 
of  Lake  Michigan,  at  Jackson  Park,  Chicago,  went 
into  the  lake  for  a  bath.    He  soon  began  to  strug- 

[41] 


Science  and  Prayer 

gle  in  the  water  and  lustily  called  for  help.  A 
crowd  hurriedly  gathered  on  the  beach,  but  no 
one  dared  to  go  into  those  treacherous  waters. 
The  man  sank,  but  just  as  he  rose  again  to  the 
surface,  a  student  of  the  university  came  on  the 
run  to  the  rescue.  He  quickly  flung  away  hat, 
coat  and  shoes,  and  boldly  plunging  in,  swam 
straight  to  the  drowning  stranger.  The  large 
company  on  the  shore  was  as  still  as  a  stone.  The 
anxiety  was  intense  lest  the  man  now  frantically 
struggling  for  his  life  should  instinctively  grasp 
his  would-be  deliverer  and  both  should  go  down 
to  death  beneath  the  waves.  But  the  student  cau- 
tiously kept  the  half -drowned  man  at  arm's  length, 
and  slowly  brought  him  on  toward  the  shore. 
The  moment  that  the  rescuer  and  the  rescued 
stood  upright  in  shallow  water,  the  crowd  that 
had  waited  seemingly  an  age  in  breathless  silence, 
broke  out  into  glad  huzzas  that  made  the  welkin 
ring,  and  in  their  joyful  excitement  threw  their 
caps,  hats  and  coats  high  up  into  the  air.  Why? 
They  had  simply  witnessed  an  act  of  vicarious 
suffering.  One  man  had  sympathized  with  another, 
whose  life  was  in  imminent  peril,  and  out  of  sym- 
pathy for  him  had  exposed  himself  to  the  same 
peril.  His  sympathy  with  him  expressed  itself  in 
an  heroic  deed  for  him.  He  voluntarily  thrust 
himself  into  the  jaws  of  death  that  he  might 
snatch  his  fellow  man  from  them. 

A  man  on  a  certain  Board  of  Trade  was  down- 
cast and  almost  in  despair  because  he  could  not 
meet  his  note  of  $25,000  in  the  bank,  which  must 

[42] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

be  paid  by  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  or  his 
credit  would  be  utterly  destroyed.  A  member  of 
the  Board,  whose  business  standing  was  flawless, 
deeply  sympathizing  with  his  brother  trader, 
lifted  the  burden  off  from  him  by  putting  his  name 
upon  the  despairing  man's  paper.  He  took  his 
place,  suffered  in  his  stead,  paid  his  debt,  and 
saved  him  from  financial  ruin.  Here  again  sym- 
pathizing with  led  to  doing  for. 

It  is  always  so,  where  sympathy  is  genuine. 
Jesus  in  his  peerless  parable  says,  that  the  Samar- 
itan, when  he  came  to  the  unfortunate  Jew,  who 
had  been  robbed,  stripped  and  beaten  into  insen- 
sibility, had  compassion  on  him,  sympathized  with 
him,  and  that  sympathy  at  once  expressed  itself 
in  outward  and  helpful  act  on  behalf  of  the  suf- 
ferer. So  the  Chief  of  good  Samaritans  sympa- 
thized, suffered  with  us,  who  had  been  robbed  and 
deeply  wounded  by  sin,  and  his  divine  sympathy 
so  identified  him  with  us  that  he  felt  within  him- 
self in  all  its  dread  reality  the  penalty  justly  due 
to  our  sin.  He  sympathized  with  us  and  hence 
died  for  us. 

But  the  notion  that  God  ever  suffers,  some 
scholarly  thinkers  reject  with  apparent  horror. 
In  their  view  suffering  is  an  attribute  of  imper- 
fection, is  either  an  accompaniment  of  immaturity, 
like  the  growing  pains  of  children,  or  the  direct 
effect  of  personal  sin,  and  so  cannot  be  predicated 
of  God. 

Of  course  God  is  neither  immature  nor  sinful, 
nor  does  he  suffer  from  such  causes.    But  the  suf- 

[43] 


Science  and  Prayer 

fering  that  we  attribute  to  him,  flows  from  his 
absolute  perfection;  suffering  that  is  the  inevi- 
table concomitant  of  his  unspeakable  love  for,  and 
boundless  sympathy  with,  those  that  are  in  dis- 
tress. That  God  must  thus  suffer  we  infer  from 
the  universal  experience  and  observation  of  men. 
One  who  can  look  without  pity  and  pain  on  the 
sufferings  of  others,  is  always  unhesitatingly  pro- 
nounced heartless.  Is  God  as  unfeeling  as  the 
worst  of  our  race?  Those  who  feel  most  acutely 
the  manifold  miseries  of  men  and  hasten  to  alle- 
viate them,  are  universally  regarded  as  the  very 
noblest  of  the  earth.  Suffering  that  arises  from 
our  sympathy  with  those  in  distress  is  not  a  proof 
of  imperfection  of  character,  but  rather  of  char- 
acter reaching  up  toward  that  of  God  himself. 
In  Christ,  in  whom  was  the  Godhead  bodily,  we 
have  the  highest  known  example  of  sympathetic 
suffering,  and  his  suffering  instead  of  proving 
him  imperfect,  exalted  him  to  the  throne  of  the 
universe.  Having,  through  sympathy  with  lost 
men,  suffered,  on  their  behalf,  the  pangs  of  spirit- 
ual death,  *  *  God  highly  exalted  him,  and  gave  unto 
him  the  name  which  is  above  every  name. ' *  (Phil. 
2:9.) 

But  some,  who  emphatically  affirm  that  suffer- 
ing is  utterly  incompatible  with  any  true  concep- 
tion of  God,  still  hold  to  the  deity  of  Christ,  and 
admit  of  course,  as  every  intelligent  Christian 
man  must,  that  he  suffered  and  suffered  for  us. 
But  to  steer  clear  of  the  notion  of  a  suffering  God, 
they  fall  back  on  the  two  natures  of  Christ,  the 

[44] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

divine  and  the  human.  To  Christ's  human  nature 
they  ascribe  his  suffering,  while  the  divine  na- 
ture, without  the  slightest  touch  of  pain  or  com- 
passion, holds  up  the  human  so  that  it  can  drink 
the  cup  of  woe  to  the  dregs  and  perfect  the  work 
of  atonement  for  the  sinner.  All  this  is  well  and 
devoutly  meant,  and  should  be  so  considered. 
But  in  all  that  Christ  said  and  did,  as  it  is  reported 
in  the  New  Testament,  we  have  no  hint  that  the 
human  and  divine  natures  in  him  acted  thus  sep- 
arately and  independently.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  he  had  two  consciousnesses,  the  human  and 
the  divine.  According  to  the  evangelists  the  one 
indivisible  Christ  acted,  said  this  and  that,  did 
this  and  that.  Moreover,  the  apostles,  who, 
guided  by  the  Spirit,  still  further  unfolded  and 
interpreted  the  gospel  for  us,  do  not  sever  the 
personality  of  Christ  so  that  the  human  and  divine 
in  him  stand  over  against  each  other.  That  both 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles  teach  the  undivided  per- 
sonality of  Jesus  is  sustained  by  the  ripest  modern 
scholarship. 

That  God,  through  sympathy  with  his  people, 
suifers,  is  strongly  re-enforced  by  many  declara- 
tions of  the  Old  Testament,  scattered  from  Gen- 
esis to  Zechariah.  When,  before  the  flood,  the 
race  became  very  corrupt,  it  ^*  grieved '^  Jehovah 
^*at  his  hearf  (Gen.  6:6.)  He  saw  the  affliction 
of  his  people  in  Egypt,  heard  their  cry,  knew  their 
sorrows  and  came  down  to  deliver  them.  (Ex.  3: 
7-8.)  In  the  time  of  the  Judges,  Jehovah's  ^^soul 
was  grieved  for  the  misery  of  Israel.''     (Judges 

[45] 


Science  and  Prayer 

10:16.)  In  Isaiah  (63:9)  it  is  declared  that  Je- 
hovah '^was  afflicted  in  all  his  people's  affliction/' 
Jehovah's  cry  over  Ephraim,  through  the  lips  of 
Hosea  (11:  8),  ending  in  the  words,  ^'My  heart  is 
turned  within  me,  my  compassions  are  kindled 
together,''  shows  how  deeply  his  soul  was  pained 
on  account  of  Israel's  incorrigible  rebellion 
against  him.  And  we  learn  from  Zechariah  that 
the  Lord  was  identified  with  his  ancient  people, 
*  ^  He  that  toucheth  you,  toucheth  the  apple  of  his, ' ' 
Jehovah's  ^^eye."  (Zech.  2:8.)  No  wonder  that 
George  Adam  Smith  in  his  exposition  of  Isaiah 
devotes  an  entire  chapter  to  *^The  Passion  of 
God." 

But  some  say  these  are  merely  anthropo- 
morphisms. Most  of  the  representations  of  God 
in  the  Bible  are.  *^Our  Father,  who  art  in 
heaven"  is  one;  ^^The  Lord  is  my  shepherd"  is 
another;  but  the  real  question  is  What  do  these 
anthropomorphisms  mean?  What  do  they  tell  us 
about  God?  Do  they  misrepresent  him!  If  Christ 
does  not  misrepresent  him  then  they  do  not.  The 
same  Jehovah  that  cried  over  his  people  in  Baby- 
lon through  the  lips  of  his  prophet, 

"Like  a  woman  in  travail  I  gasp, 
Pant  and  palpitate  together," 

(Smith's  Isaiah, Vol.  II,  p.  134) 

wept  over  Jerusalem,  and  agonized  over  a  world 
in  Gethsemane. 

And  the  crowning  consideration  on  this  point 
is  that  no  man,  during  all  the  ages,  ever  longed 

[46] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

for  an  unsympathetic,  passionless  God.  From 
such  an  unfeeling  God,  men  universally  recoil. 
Being  infinite  in  holiness  and  power  they  tremble 
in  his  presence,  but  cannot  love  him.  With  tricky, 
sinful  Jacob  they  cry,  *  *  Jehovah  is  in  this  place.  * ' 
**How  dreadful  is  this  place!"  A  God  who  fills 
men  with  cowering  fear  and  shuddering  dread, 
who  cannot  sympathize  or  suffer  with  them  in 
their  deep  distress,  even  though  their  woes  are 
but  the  just  retribution  for  their  sins,  cannot  be 
the  true  God.  Although  some  men  under  the  old 
dispensation  caught  clear  glimpses  of  Jehovah 
and  of  his  love  and  sympathy,  not  till  Christ  came 
did  *^the  Sun  of  righteousness  arise  with  healing 
in  its  wings.''  (Mai.  4;  2.)  *^God  so  loved  the 
world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not  perish  but 
have  eternal  life, ' '  is  the  sweetest  song  ever  heard 
on  earth.  The  loving,  sympathetic  God,  the  true 
God,  was  in  Christ.  What  Christ  did,  he  did. 
What  Christ  suffered,  he  suffered.  Christ,  God 
in  Christ,  took  up  into  his  heart  of  infinite  ten- 
derness all  our  sorrows,  and  felt  them  with 
us  even  unto  death.  To  him  men,  even  when 
half  awake  to  spiritual  realities,  are  irresistibly 
drawn. 

During  Christ's  earthly  ministry,  Luke  tells  us 
(15:1)  that  publicans  and  sinners  kept  coming 
to  him  to  hear  him.  They  knew  that  he  abhorred 
their  sins,  but  in  spite  of  that  they  were  attracted 
to  his  person  and  loved  to  hear  his  words.  They 
did  not  know  that  he  was  God  in  their  own  flesh, 

[47] 


Science  and  Prayer 

but  they  felt  that  they  stood  in  the  presence  of 
one  who  understood  them  and  whose  sympathy 
overflowed  to  them;  so  in  spite  of  the  protests 
of  the  Pharisees,  the  acknowledged  leaders  of  the 
people,  they  kept  coming  to  Jesus.  Neither  their 
sins  nor  their  rulers  could  keep  them  away  from 
him.  The  true,  sympathetic  God  allures  and  sat- 
isfies men.  The  supreme  need  of  the  world  is  to 
know  him. 

But  can  a  suffering  Saviour  be  happy?  men 
ask.  Pain  or  suffering  is  not  in  itself  an  evil  but 
a  beneficent  agent  for  the  good  of  men.  It  is  often 
a  kindly  warning  against  sinful  excesses,  which, 
if  persisted  in,  bring  men  prematurely  to  death. 
It  is  also  a  moral  discipline  by  which  men  are 
unfolded  into  virtue.  In  suffering  one  learns  how 
to  let  patience  have  her  perfect  work,  that  he  may 
reach  that  state  of  perfection  in  which  he  shall 
lack  nothing.  Even  Christ  learned  by  suffering 
how  to  be  our  ** merciful  and  faithful  high  priest." 
It  is  also  an  expression  of  our  heavenly  Father's 
love,  and  when  endured  with  resignation  to  the 
divine  will  brings  forth  in  us  **the  fruit  of  right- 
eousness. ' '  To  begin  at  the  lowest  point,  physical 
suffering  and  happiness  are  not  incompatible. 
Christian  invalids,  along  whose  quivering  nerves 
pain  runs  with  blistering  feet,  often  have  deep 
down  in  their  hearts  the  peace  of  God  that  passes 
all  understanding.  The  peace  and  even  joy  of 
the  martyrs,  when  enduring  the  most  excruciating 
physical  tortures,  have  been  not  only  unruffled  but 
enhanced.    Moreover,  even  mental  suffering  has 

[48] 


The  Atonement  through  Sympathy 

been  unable  to  drive  happiness  from  the  soul  that 
unwaveringly  trusts  in  God.  Innumerable  times 
Christian  men,  smarting  under  baseless  slander, 

"Whose  edge  is  sharper  than  the  sword,  whose  tongue 
Outvenoms  all  the  worms  of  Nile," 

(Cymbeline  III,  Sc.  4.) 

have  still  been  serene  and  happy.  Now  the  most 
exquisite  of  all  suffering  is  that  which  flows  from 
our  sympathy  with  those  in  distress,  and  such  suf- 
ferers, by  common  consent,  are  the  happiest  of 
mortals.  And  if  this  be  true  in  the  case  of 
imperfect  men,  it  is  also  unquestionably  true  in 
the  case  of  God.  Our  divine  Lord  who  suffers 
s}Tnpathetically  with  us  is  at  the  same  time  filled 
with  unfathomable  peace  and  happiness  unalloyed. 
These  objections  answered,  this  then  is  the  sum 
of  our  contention :  Christ,  on  account  of  what  he 
is  and  did,  made  it  possible  for  every  man  to  be 
reconciled  to  God.  *'God  was  in  Christ,  recon- 
ciling the  world  unto  himself.''  Through  his  infi- 
nite love,  boundless  sympathy  and  incarnation  he 
identified  himself  with  our  race;  took  up  into 
himself  all  our  distresses  and  felt  in  all  its  fulness 
and  sharpness  our  chief  woe,  separation  from  God 
on  account  of  our  voluntary  transgression.  The 
sinless  Saviour  thus  endured  with  us  and  for  us 
death,  the  penalty  of  sin,  bore  it  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree,  satisfied  in  himself  every  demand  of 
his  own  law  on  the  sinner,  and  exhibited,  as  he 
could  have  done  in  no  other  way,  the  limitless  love 
of  God  to  sinful  men,  and  the  awfulness  and  un- 

[49] 


Science  and  Prayer 

speakable  hatefulness  of  sin.  And  all  this — and 
here  is  the  emphasis — as  the  natural,  spontaneous 
outflow  of  his  love  for  us  and  his  unfathomable, 
tender  sympathy  with  us. 


[50] 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  MORAL  ATTRIBUTE 

OF  GOD 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  MORAL  ATTRIBUTE 

OF  GOD 

To  make  my  discussion  as  clear  as  possible,  I 
wish  to  notice  at  the  start  that  by  '^fundamentaP* 
I  do  not  mean  that  one  attribute  of  God  is  any 
more  necessary  to  his  perfection  than  another. 
If  we  should  strip  him  of  any  one  of  his  attributes, 
he  would  no  longer  be  God.  The  word  '^  fundamen- 
tal'' refers  solely  to  our  logical  conception  of 
God's  moral  attributes.    By  any  just  analysis  of 
those  attributes,  which  one  in  our  thinking  under- 
lies all  the  rest?    Out  from  which  one  must  all  the 
other  of  his  moral  attributes  spring,  so  that  we 
cannot  conceive  of  their  existence  apart  from  it? 
I  trust  that  I  am  fully  aware  of  the  difficulty 
and  profundity  of  this  subject.    I  fear  that  it  may 
be  possible  for  those  who  may  read  this  chapter 
truthfully  to  say  to  me,  *^you  have  nothing  to 
draw  with  and  the  well  is  deep."     I  certainly 
hardly  expect,  in  a  brief  essay,  to  clear  the  ground 
of  deeply-rooted  theological  doctrine;  but  I  wish 
with  becoming  modesty,  so  far  as  I  can  attain  to 
that  grace,  to  present  tentatively  a  view  which 
at  least  satisfies  me  better  than  the  diverse  views 
hitherto  held  on  this  subject  by  great  and  justly 
honored  theologians. 

Some  of  them  have  made  holiness  the  funda- 
mental attribute  of  God,  and  by  convincing  logic 

[53] 


Science  and  Prayer 

have  shown  how  all  the  rest  of  his  moral  attributes 
flow  out  of  it,  or  are  based  upon  it,  and  are  con- 
trolled and  modified  by  it.  Others  have  contended 
that  love  is  the  fundamental  attribute  and  that 
holiness  is  only  an  essential  quality  of  love ;  God's 
love  is  a  holy  love.  But  one  instinctively  feels  that 
this  reasoning  is  somewhat  strained;  and  a  sus- 
picion creeps  into  the  mind  that  it  is  resorted  to 
to  bolster  up  a  preconceived  theory.  Some  theo- 
logians of  our  time  have  for  years  vigorously 
maintained  that  holiness  is  the  fundamental  attri- 
bute of  God,  and  then  have  shifted  their  position, 
abandoning  all  their  cogent  arguments,  and  have 
contended  with  new-born  zeal  that  love  is  the  fun- 
damental attribute.  And  this  swinging  from  one 
extremity  of  the  arc  to  the  other,  they  have  her- 
alded as  progress.  But  it  is  barely  possible  that 
neither  view  is  right,  and  that  lying  back  of  holi- 
ness and  love  there  is  an  attribute  which  is  funda- 
mental to  both  of  them.  And  we  venture  to  sug- 
gest that  that  attribute  is  life. 

We  do  not  mean  by  life  simply  being,  existence, 
continuity  of  existence,  but  a  distinctive  spiritual 
life,  a  life  that  inevitably  blossoms  into  holiness 
and  love.  Without  this  life  God  might  have  being, 
intellectuality,  will,  but  without  it  he  could  have 
neither  holiness,  nor  love,  nor  any  other  moral 
attribute.  This  I  trust  will  be  made  reasonably 
clear  at  a  later  stage  of  our  argument. 

In  order  that  we  may  see  that  life,  as  we  have 
defined  it,  is  a  moral  attribute,  we  must  distin- 
guish the  different  classes  of  God's  attributes. 

[54] 


The  Fundamental  Moral  Attribute 

First,  there  are  attributes  which  belong  simply 
to  the  being  of  God — are  simply  inherent  in  being 
as  such;  sometimes  unhappily  they  have  been 
called  the  mechanical  attributes;  these  are  God's 
eternalness,  omnipresence,  omniscience,  and  om- 
nipotence. We  can  conceive  of  these  attributes 
entirely  apart  from  any  moral  quality.  In  other 
words  there  might  be  eternalness,  omnipresence, 
omniscience,  omnipotence  not  only  not  moral,  but 
all  save  the  first  malignant.  Happily  we  know 
from  the  revelation  of  God  to  us  that  the  every- 
where-present One  is  holy,  that  holy  eyes  see  all 
things,  and  that  his  omnipotence  is  wielded  in 
behalf  of  righteousness, — but  these  attributes 
which  pertain  simply  to  his  being  are  not  neces- 
sarily moral. 

Whereas,  his  life, — his  distinctively  spiritual 
life,  life  distinguished  from  mere  being,  from  in- 
tellect, from  will, — and  also  holiness,  and  love, 
which,  we  think,  are  based  upon  it,  are  moral 
attributes;  and  our  inquiry  is  which  of  these 
moral  attributes  is  fundamental? 

We  need  to  make  one  more  classification.  There 
are  some  attributes  that  are  passive,  and  some 
that  are  active.  This  discrimination  must  be  made 
even  among  the  attributes  which  belong  simply 
to  God's  being  as  such.  Omnipresence  is  clearly 
a  passive  attribute,  while  omniscience  is  neces- 
sarily active.  To  see  requires  attention,  and 
attention  presupposes  the  action  of  the  will. 
While  omnipotence,  from  different  points  of  view, 
is  both  passive  and  active.     Potential  omnipo- 

[55] 


Science  and  Prayer 

tence,  or  omnipotence  viewed  simply  as  a  posses- 
sion, is  passive ;  omnipotence  wielded  is  of  course 
active. 

Now  the  moral  attributes  of  God  are  divided 
into  the  same  classes.  Life,  as  we  have  defined 
it,  partakes  of  both  the  passive  and  active.  Pas- 
sively it  indicates  a  state  or  condition;  but  life 
always  struggles  to  express  itself;  and  the  spirit- 
ual life  of  God  expresses  itself  in  holiness,  love, 
mercy,  etc.  The  passive  unfolds  itself,  and  so  far 
it  is  an  active  attribute.  Holiness  also  on  one  side 
is  passive ;  but  it  too  expresses  itself  in  love  and 
justice.  But  love,  justice,  and  mercy  are  among 
the  active  moral  attributes. 

We  have  now  sufficiently  defined  and  differenti- 
ated the  attribute  which  we  think  is  the  funda- 
mental, moral  attribute  of  God.  Talking  with  a 
learned  friend,  he  raised  the  question  as  to 
whether  life  is  an  attribute  of  God  at  all.  But 
an  attribute  of  any  object  is  one  of  its  essential 
qualities.  All  the  essential  qualities  of  an  object, 
so  far  as  we  can  apprehend  them,  put  into  a  dec- 
laration concerning  that  object,  or  affirmed  of  it, 
constitute  a  definition  of  it.  Any  attempted  defi- 
nition of  God  that  should  leave  out  his  distinctive 
moral  or  spiritual  life  would  be  so  manifestly 
defective  that  a  tyro  in  theology  would  reject  it. 
It  is  then  an  attribute,  an  essential  quality  of  God 
as  God  is  revealed  to  us ;  it  is  a  moral  attribute ; 
it  is  fundamental  to  all  other  moral  attributes, — 
without  it  they  could  not  be ;  the  existence  of  each 
one  of  them  implies  its  existence. 

[56] 


The  Fundamental  Moral  Attribute 

From  the  life  of  God  as  now  defined  his  other 
moral  attributes  are  naturally  and  readily  de- 
duced. Not  to  stop  to  test  this  statement  in  refer- 
ence to  them  all,  let  us  test  it  in  reference  to  holi- 
ness and  love.  As  to  holiness,  the  life  of  which 
we  speak  is  characterized  by  it.  To  divest  the 
spiritual  life  of  God  of  holiness  would  divest  it 
of  one  of  its  essential  qualities.  The  spiritual  life 
of  God  apart  from  holiness  is  unthinkable.  Still 
holiness  is  only  an  essential  quality  of  it.  We 
do  not  naturally  say  live  holiness,  but  a  holy  life. 
Holiness  is  the  expression  of  the  innermost  nature 
of  this  life. 

But  God^s  spiritual,  holy  life  also  expresses 
itself  in  love.  But  in  our  thought  we  must  differ- 
entiate love  from  emotion.  Emotion  accompanies 
love,  but  it  is  not  love  itself.  Love  in  its  last 
analysis  is  choice  or  preference.  Since  God's  life 
is  holy  he  is  impelled  by  his  moral  nature  to 
choose,  to  prefer,  to  love  that  which  is  holy.  So 
among  all  the  objects  of  his  creation  on  this  earth 
he  prefers,  loves  men.  He  loves  them  because  they 
are  made  in  his  own  image.  That  image  has  been 
marred  and  defaced  by  sin;  still  God  sees  that 
it  may  be  perfectly  retraced  in  the  souls  of  men, 
and  restored  to  its  pristine  purity;  on  that  ac- 
count he  so  loved  men  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish  but  have  everlasting  life.  He 
prefers,  loves,  men  above  trees  or  beasts  since  he 
sees  the  possibility  of  their  becoming  as  pure  as 
he  himself  is  pure.    But  the  same  holy  life  that 

[57] 


Science  and  Prayer 

leads  him  to  prefer,  to  love  men  because  made 
in  his  image  and  capable  of  becoming  in  moral 
purity  like  himself,  leads  him  also  to  loath  and 
hate  sin  by  which  his  image  has  been  polluted  and 
defaced  .  Love,  preference  for  that  which  is  good, 
and  hatred  for  that  which  is  evil  have  the  same 
root;  they  both  spring  from  the  same  holy  life 
of  God.  His  holy  life  also  impels  him  to  love  his 
children  with  a  special  love,  to  prefer  them  to 
those  who  are  not  his  children  by  virtue  of  the 
new  birth  by  his  Spirit.  It  leads  him  to  prefer 
the  angels,  those  seraphic  spirits  that  have  never 
sinned,  to  devils ;  it  leads  him  to  prefer,  love,  his 
own  immaculate  character,  his  stainless  glory 
above  all.  There  is  in  this  no  selfishness ;  having 
a  holy  life  as  the  fundamental  moral  attribute  of 
his  being,  he  is  under  a  moral  necessity  of  prefer- 
ring, loving  that  which  is  supremely  perfect.  And 
this  explains  why  he  made  his  own  glory  his 
supreme  end  in  creation.  An  aged  disciple,  in  a 
cottage  of  Northern  England,  said  ^It  sets  him 
well  to  commend  himself^;  it  sets,  it  becomes  him 
well  to  commend  himself.  He  loves,  prefers  him- 
self ;  he  cannot  do  otherwise  since  he  is  the  abso- 
lute standard  of  holiness  in  the  whole  universe. 

Now  having  noted  that  holiness  and  love  both 
flow  from  the  spiritual  life  of  God,  let  us  see  what 
the  Scriptures  suggest  as  to  his  fundamental 
moral  attribute. 

We  turn  to  the  Old  Testament  and  find  in  sev- 
eral passages  that  God  is  distinctively  called  the 
*' living  God.**    He  was  thus  at  times  contrasted 

[58] 


The  Fundamental  Moi^al  Attribute 

with  idols  that  were  declared  to  be  dead.  (Josh. 
3 :  10 ;  2  Kings  19 :  4,  16 ;  cf.  1  Thess.  1:9.)  But 
the  contrast  was  made  by  that  essential  attribute 
which  preeminently  distinguished  him  from  insen- 
sate, inert  idols.  The  loving  God;  the  holy  God 
would  have  connoted  a  striking  contrast ;  but  the 
living  God  connoted  a  contrast  still  more  radical 
and  striking. 

Full  forty  times  we  have  record  of  oaths  rev- 
erently made  by  men  all  along  the  entire  period 
of  the  development  of  Israel's  history,  and  in 
every  instance  the  oath  is  by  God  or  Jehovah  that 
liveth.  But  his  love,  mercy,  longsuffering,  for- 
giveness, holiness  had  all  been  revealed;  but  no 
recorded  oath  takes  up  into  its  expression  one  of 
those  attributes,  but  it  does  take  up  into  itself  the 
attribute  of  life  and  that  only.  Naturally  that 
which  was  fundamental  in  the  character  of  God 
would  find  expression  in  the  solemn,  reverent 
oath. 

Moreover,  at  least  nine  times  we  have  the  rec- 
ord of  the  oath  by  which  God,  Jehovah,  swore  by 
himself;  and  in  no  instance  did  he  swear  by  his 
holiness  or  his  love,  but  always  by  his  life;  *^As 
I  live ' '  is  the  expression  in  every  case.  "WHien  he 
thus  took  his  oath,  a  recent  authority  says  that 
he  evidently  swore  by  the  inmost  moral  attribute 
of  his  being. 

But  in  the  ever-unfolding  revelation  of  God, 
Christ  at  last,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  came ;  Christ 
who  was  in  the  beginning,  in  eternity,  with  God 
and  was  God;  Christ,  who  is  the  brightness  of  the 

[59] 


Science  and  Prayer 

Father's  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  per- 
son ;  Christ  in  whom  dwells  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily.  In  him  we  can  learn  more  of 
what  God  is  than  from  all  other  sources.  And 
the  disciple  that  leaned  on  Jesus'  bosom, 
and  looked  down  deeper  into  the  depths 
of  his  divine  nature  than  any  other  fol- 
lower of  his,  says  '*in  him  was  life,  and  the 
life  was  the  light  of  men.''  Neither  the  Master, 
nor  any  of  his  disciples,  can  give  light  to  others 
unless  he  first  has  life,  and  no  life  gives  light 
except  a  holy  life.  To  my  own  mind,  in  such  a 
characterization  of  his  Lord,  John  seized  upon  the 
fundamental  moral  attribute  of  his  being,  and 
that  attribute  in  him,  who  is  the  express  image 
of  God  the  Father,  is  life. 

This  representation  made  by  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved,  is  sustained  by  the  words  of  Jesus 
himself.  Among  the  reasons  that  he  gave  why 
*^all  men  should  honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor 
the  Father,"  we  find  this:  ''For  as  the  Father 
hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son 
to  have  life  in  himself."  He  did  not  say  love, 
or  holiness  but  life.  What  of  homage  is  due  to  the 
Father  is  due  also  to  the  Son  because  he  has  in 
himself  the  very  life  of  the  Father.  Was  he  not 
here  speaking  of  the  innermost  attribute  both  of 
the  Father  and  of  himself?  In  such  a  connection, 
where  he  mentions  only  one  attribute  of  the 
Father  and  himself  would  he  have  mentioned  any 
attribute  but  the  fundamental  one!  And  just 
before  Gethsemane  and  the  cross,  he  said  to  his 

[60] 


The  Fundamental  Moral  Attribute 

sorrowing  and  bewildered  disciples,  as  they  were 
asking  after  the  way  to  the  Father,  I  am  the  way 
to  him ;  I  am  the  truth  and  reveal  to  you  the  fact 
that  you  can  have  fellowship  with  him  through 
me;  and  I  am  the  life;  the  very  life  of  God  is 
mine;  I  will  impart  it  to  you.  Jesus  had  before 
said  that  he  quickened,  made  alive,  whom  he 
would.  And  when  one  possesses  that  life,  he  will 
be  in  spiritual  life  one  with  Christ  and  the  Father. 
In  this  wonderfully  pregnant  declaration,  *^I  am 
the  way,  the  truth  and  the  life,''  ^^the  life"  is 
the  climax.  He  in  whom  we  can  see  as  nowhere 
else  what  God  is,  announces  himself  as  *  ^  the  life ' ' ; 
that  is  the  utmost  height  of  his  claim. 

Now  let  us  test  the  truth  of  our  position,  that 
life  is  the  fundamental  attribute  of  God,  by  what 
is  wrought  in  those  that  are  saved.  The  New 
Testament  represents  men  in  their  impenitent 
state  as  dead.  But  at  the  same  time  they  are 
alive.  *'She  that  liveth  in  pleasure,''  says  Paul, 
*  ^  is  dead  while  she  liveth. ' '  Impenitent  men  are 
physically  alive ;  in  this  respect  they  are  like  the 
beasts  of  the  field;  they  are  also  intellectually 
alive ;  capable  of  originating  and  executing  great 
business  enterprises;  of  wisely  solving  the  pro- 
foundest  problems  of  statesmanship;  of  pushing 
out  into  new  fields  of  scientific  research;  of  pro- 
ducing literature  that  shall  live  on  through  many 
generations,  stirring,  delighting,  benefiting  all 
who  read  it ;  but  at  the  same  time  they  are  spirit- 
ually dead.  At  the  same  time  they  are  both  like 
and  unlike  God.     Like  God  they  have  reason; 

[61] 


Science  and  Prayer 

like  God  they  have  will ;  but  unlike  God  they  have 
no  spiritual,  holy  life.  They  are  dead  in  just  that 
attribute  that  corresponds  to  the  innermost  moral 
attribute  of  God.  That  in  which  they  differ  from 
God  is  so  transcendently  more  vital  and  important 
than  that  in  which  they  are  like  God,  that  they 
have  no  fellowship  with  him.  Reason  and  will  may 
be  exercised  quite  outside  of  that  which  is  moral 
or  spiritual,  and  in  the  case  of  impenitent  men 
are  so  exercised ;  so  that  though  they  reason  and 
will  they  are  dead  to  God;  in  them  there  is  no 
response  to  the  spiritual  life  of  God;  they  are 
dead  to  his  fundamental  moral  attribute. 

Now,  only  life  can  impart  life.  Spontaneous 
generation  mooted  by  Tyndal  at  Belfast  years  ago 
was  proved  to  be  unscientific.  The  German  scien- 
tists tested  it  by  experimentation.  They  took 
matter,  killed  every  germ  of  life  in  it,  and  then 
put  it  in  the  best  possible  conditions  for  sponta- 
neously producing  life.  But  the  only  response 
was  death;  and  the  whole  scientific  world  aban- 
doned the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation  as 
utterly  untenable.  As  it  is  in  the  physical  uni- 
verse so  is  it  in  the  spiritual.  Men  spiritually 
dead  cannot  give  to  themselves  spiritual  life. 
Wherever  and  whenever  they  have  tried  it,  the 
only  response  to  their  efforts  has  been  death. 
He,  the  innermost  moral  attribute  of  whose  being 
is  life,  only  can  impart  life.  He  comes  to  us  in 
Jesus  Christ,  who  said,  **I  came  that  they  may 
have  life,  and  may  have  it  abundantly, ' '  or,  as  in 
the  margin  of  the  R.  V.,  may  ^^have  abundance'' 

[62] 


The  Fundamental  Moral  Attribute 

of  life.  Here  we  have  the  primary  object  for 
which  Christ  came ;  primarily  not  to  give  holiness 
or  love,  but  to  give  life.  He  pours  into  the  very 
part  of  man's  being  where  death  reigns  his  life, 
and  brings  man  into  fellowship  with  him,  whose 
fundamental  moral  attribute  is  life. 

We  must  notice  also  that  the  imparting  of  life 
is  in  the  Scriptures  connected  with  faith.  Christ 
said,  ^^He  that  heareth  my  word,  and  believeth 
him  that  sent  me,  hath  eternal  life,  and  cometh 
not  into  judgment,  but  hath  passed  out  of  death 
into  life/^  But  belief,  trust  unites  him  who  exer- 
cises it  with  God;  brings  him  into  vital  fellow- 
ship with  God,  so  that  the  holy  life  of  God  flows 
over  into  him.  Not  primarily  the  holiness  or  love 
of  God  is  imparted  to  him,  but  a  holy  life.  So 
John  says,  ^*He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath 
eternal  life. ' '  Not  primarily  holiness  or  love,  but 
life  and  that  eternal.  Christ  said  to  the  Phari- 
sees, ^^Ye  will  not  come  to  me,  that  ye  may  have 
life.*'  Jesus  called  himself  the  bread  of  life,  and 
declared  that  ^^The  bread  of  God  is  that  which 
cometh  down  out  of  heaven  and  giveth  life  unto 
the  world.''  At  the  close  of  his  gospel  John  said, 
referring  to  what  he  had  recorded,  *^  These  are 
written,  that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  may 
have  life  in  his  name. ' '  But  we  need  not  multiply 
passages  of  similar  import.  It  is  abundantly  clear 
from  these  that  God  in  Christ  came  primarily  to 
impart  life  to  men,  and  that  in  the  impartation 
of  it  men  themselves  must  cooperate   with  God, 

[63] 


Science  and  Prayer 

must  trust  in  him,  vitally  connect  themselves  with 
him  by  faith.  That  which  God  imparts  is  mani- 
festly primary,  not  secondary. 

This  view  of  life  reveals  to  us  what  the  Scrip- 
tures mean  by  ** eternal  life.''  Here  are  some 
passages  that  contain  this  phrase.  Matt.  25 :  46. 
The  righteous  shall  go  away  into  eternal  life. 
Mk.  10: 17,  30,  Good  Master,  what  shall  I  do  that 
I  may  inherit  eternal  life?  Keceive  in  the 
world  to  come  eternal  life.  Jno.  3 :  15,  That  who- 
soever believeth  may  in  him  have  eternal  life. 
4 :  36,  He  that  reapeth  receiveth  wages  and  gath- 
ereth  fruit  unto  life  eternal.  6 ;  54,  He  that  eateth 
my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  hath  eternal  life. 
10:28, 1  give  unto  them  (my  sheep)  eternal  life. 
17 :  2,  To  them  he  should  give  eternal  life.  Eom. 
2 :  7,  God  gives  *  ^  to  them  that  by  patience  in  well- 
doing seek  for  glory  and  honor  and  incorruption, 
eternal  life. "  6 :  23,  But  the  free  gift  of  God  is 
eternal  life  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.  1  Tim. 
6 :  12,  Lay  hold  on  life  eternal.  These  are  only  a 
few  Scriptures  among  many  in  which  the  phrase 
is  used.  A  phrase  so  constantly  recurring  should 
be  as  clearly  as  possible  understood.  In  these 
passages  eternal  life  is  represented  as  a  gift  of 
God  bestowed  through  faith,  as  the  reward  of 
obedience,  and  is  an  unending,  unchangeable 
inheritance. 

It  is  obvious  at  a  glance  that  the  phrase  *  *  eter- 
nal life''  does  not  mean  simply  immortality,  con- 
tinuous, unending  existence.  Immortality  is  not 
bestowed  upon  men  through  their  faith  in  God; 

[64] 


The  Fundamental  Moral  Attribute 

is  not  something  that  we  can  lay  hold  of.  It 
belongs  to  man's  original  constitution.  By  no  act 
of  his  is  it  either  secured  or  lost.  It  is  an  original, 
essential  attribute  of  man  as  such.  Just  as  the 
attribute  of  eternalness  belongs  to  the  simple 
being  of  God,  and  has  in  itself  no  moral  quality, 
so  the  attribute  of  immortality  belongs  to  the 
original  nature  of  man  and  possesses  in  itself  no 
moral  quality  whatsoever.  By  virtue  of  it  man 
continues  to  exist  forever  in  weal  or  woe.  But 
eternal  life  is  something  secured  by  man;  some- 
thing granted  to  him  by  God  in  Christ.  It  is  to 
our  mind  evidently  the  holy  life  of  God,  once  pos- 
sessed by  man,  made  in  God's  image,  but  lost  by 
sin,  but  now  restored  to  him  by  God  in  Christ 
through  faith.  The  loss  of  it  entailed  upon  our 
race  untold  misery;  the  restoration  of  it  to  all 
who  will  receive  it,  brings  to  them  blessing,  hap- 
piness, joy  greater  than  any  words  can  express ; 
makes  them  one  with  God  in  his  fundamental 
moral  attribute.  His  holy  life  becomes  theirs; 
the  peace  of  God  that  passes  all  understanding 
becomes  their  unfailing,  their  eternal  possession. 
All  the  ineffable  joys  and  glories  of  heaven  flow 
forth  from  it. 

Paul,  the  great  apostolic  interpreter  of  the  gos- 
pel, is  in  entire  harmony  with  Jesus  and  John 
in  reference  to  the  fact  that  life  is  fundamental 
in  the  character  of  the  believer.  To  be  sure  he 
deals  more  constantly  with  righteousness,  an 
inevitable  expression  of  the  life;  but  a  passage 
in  Galatians  makes  the  impartation  of  life  the 

[65] 


Science  and  Prayer 

basal  fact  in  the  salvation  of  a  sinner.  In  that 
passage  the  Apostle  says,  **For  if  there  had  been 
a  law  given  which  could  make  alive;''  now  we 
expect  him  to  say,  making  alive,  or  the  imparta- 
tion  of  life,  ^* would  have  been  of  the  law/'  But 
no,  in  the  second,  the  conditional  member  of  his 
sentence,  he  uses  the  term  righteousness,  which 
designates  the  expression  or  counterpart  of  life. 
Nor  does  he  leave  us  in  doubt  as  to  what  he  re- 
gards as  the  source  of  the  life;  while  it  is  not 
the  law  that  makes  alive,  the  law  is  the  pedagogue 
that  leads  men  to  Christ  who  can  and  will  make 
them  alive.  In  the  same  epistle,  before  he  thus 
elaborates  this  thought,  he  speaks  of  his  own, 
personal  salvation,  as  wrapped  up  in  the  life  of 
Christ.  By  faith  he  is  so  identified  with  Christ 
that  on  the  one  hand  he  is  crucified  with  him,  but 
on  the  other  (blessed  paradox)  he  lives  as  never 
before;  but  so  perfectly  is  he  identified  with  his 
Saviour,  that  his  life  is  Christ  living  in  him.  He 
does  not  give  even  a  hint  in  reference  to  holiness 
or  love,  but  the  foundation  fact  in  his  salvation 
is  life ;  the  very  life  of  Christ  is  so  imparted  to 
him  that  he  in  Christ  and  Christ  in  him  live  the 
same  life.  We  need  not  multiply  passages  from 
Paul's  epistles;  but  when  we  catch  his  idea  of 
Christ 's  life  in  the  believer  we  do  not  wonder  that 
he  directs  Timothy  to  charge  those  ^^that  are  rich 
in  this  present  world"  to  *4ay  hold  rather  on  the 
life  which  is  life  indeed;"  because  that  life  is 
eternal  salvation  enfolding  within  itself  every 
conceivable  excellence  and  glory ;  nor  do  we  won- 

[66] 


The  Fundamental  Moral  Attribute 

der  that  he  wrote  to  the  Colossians,  ^Svhen  Christ, 
who  is  our  life,  shall  be  manifested,  then  shall 
ye  also  with  him  be  manifested  in  glory. '  ^ 

But  to  this  view  it  is  objected  that  John  wrote 
in  his  first  epistle  those  wonderful  words  of  light 
and  power,  ' '  God  is  love ; ' '  some,  therefore,  have 
declared  that  love  is  the  very  substance  of  God. 
But  no  one  knows  what  is  the  substance  of  the 
human  soul,  nor  even  what  is  the  substance  of 
matter,  and  so  certainly  no  one  knows  what  is  the 
substance  of  God.  And  if  John's  words  should  be 
taken  as  the  revelation  to  us  of  God's  substance, 
that  contention  would  lead  us  into  difficulty,  since 
in  the  same  epistle  the  beloved  disciple  declares 
that  *^God  is  light.''  In  this  declaration  do  we 
have  the  revelation  that  light  is  the  substance  of 
God?  Or  are  light  and  love  identical!  Is  it  not 
John's  way  of  expressing  with  weightiest  empha- 
sis a  vastly  important  attribute  of  God!  And 
perhaps  when  men  say  that  love  is  the  very  sub- 
stance of  God,  they  are  simply  giving  expression 
to  their  high  appreciation  of  his  love  by  words  of 
intense  rhetoric. 

Now,  to  complete  the  presentation  of  our  view 
we  must  not  fail  to  note  the  corresponding  attri- 
butes of  the  believer  and  God.  When  spiritual 
life  is  imparted  to  one  who  is  brought  by  faith 
into  touch  with  Christ,  his  moral  state  becomes 
like  that  of  God  himself.  He  has  holiness  within 
him  now,  at  least  in  germ.  His  holiness  manifests 
itself  in  righteousness,  which  is  right  acting  both 
toward  God  and  men;   it  manifests  itself  in  jus- 

[67] 


Science  and  Prayer 

tice  which  meets  the  full  measure  of  obligation 
not  only  to  individuals  with  whom  we  are  bound 
up  together  in  society,  but  also  to  society  and  the 
State ;  it  leads  him  to  do  both  his  individual  and 
corporate  duties. 

As  the  outgrowth  of  his  new  life  he  has  love  like 
that  of  God ;  it  is  the  same  in  kind,  but  of  course 
falls  short  of  it  in  degree.  He  now  loves,  chooses, 
prefers  what  God  loves,  chooses,  prefers.  Just 
as  God  loves,  prefers,  his  own  stainless  holiness, 
so  does  the  believer  prefer  God's  holiness,  and 
begins  to  strive  after  it.  Just  as  God  loves,  espe- 
cially prefers,  his  children  to  all  other  men,  so 
the  believer  begins  to  love,  to  prefer  them.  We 
know  that  we  have  passed  out  of  death  into  life 
because  we  love,  prefer,  the  brethren.  Just  as 
God  loves,  prefers,  impenitent  men  above  all  other 
living  creatures  on  the  earth,  save  his  own  chil- 
dren, because  they  are  made  in  his  own  image, 
and  have  full  provision  made  for  their  salvation 
in  the  death  and  life  of  his  Son,  so  the  believer, 
who  has  passed  out  of  death  into  life,  the  very 
life  of  God,  according  to  his  measure  and  capac- 
ity, also  loves,  prefers,  them.  Paul,  as  soon  as 
he  became  conscious  of  his  new  life  in  Christ, 
preached  Jesus  to  his  Jewish  brethren  at  Damas- 
cus that  he  might  save  them.  He  at  once  began 
to  love  as  God  loves,  and  to  hate  as  God  hates. 
And  he  is  but  a  type  of  all  into  whom  through 
faith  God's  life  flows.  Each  one  can  sing  with 
Wesley, 

"Jesus  all  the  day  long 
Was  my  joy  and  my  song :" 

[68] 


The  Fundamental  Moral  Attribute 

but  from  every  such  soul,  rejoicing  on  account  of 
his  new  life,  there  inevitably  bursts  forth  the  next 

line, 

"0  that  all  his  salvation  might  see !" 

Now,  we  know  that  we  get  our  conception  of 
God^s  attributes  from  what  we  observe  in  our- 
selves, who  are  made  in  the  image  of  God.  There 
is  within  each  one  of  us  a  sense  of  justice ;  of  this 
we  are  conscious ;  a  like  sense  of  justice  we  rightly 
attribute  to  God ;  only  in  us  this  sense  of  justice 
is  finite,  in  God  it  is  infinite;  renewed  men  love 
God  and  their  brethren;  so  they  conclude  that 
love  is  a  moral  attribute  of  God ;  only  while  they 
love  imperfectly  and  finitely,  he  loves  perfectly 
and  infinitely.  And  so  of  all  the  other  moral 
attributes.  Now  we  know  beyond  the  shadow  of 
a  doubt  that  in  us  spiritual  life  is  fundamental 
to  holiness  and  love.  No  man  can  have  holiness 
and  love  until  the  moral  life  of  God  is  imparted 
to  him.  And  as  this  is  so  in  us,  it  is  also  so  in 
God.  Back  of  and  beneath  his  attributes  of  holi- 
ness and  love  lies  his  moral  life;  and  out  of  it 
holiness  and  love  spring. 

If  our  position  be  true,  then  those  theological 
writers,  who  contend  with  each  other  as  to  whether 
holiness  or  love  is  the  fundamental  moral  attri- 
bute of  God,  might  be  brought  into  blissful  unity 
by  a  cordial  recognition  of  the  moral  life  of  God 
as  his  fundamental  attribute,  the  natural,  inevi- 
table expression  of  which  is  holiness  and  love,  and 
without  which  neither  holiness  nor  love  could 
possibly  exist. 

[69] 


Science  and  Prayer 

Moreover,  a  common  declaration  of  our  day  is 
''Christianity  is  not  a  system  of  doctrine,  but  a 
life.''  This  popular  affirmation  is  of  course  too 
sweeping;  loosely  speaking,  Christianity  is  not 
merely  a  system  of  doctrine,  but  is  also  a  life. 
That  would  be  nearer  the  truth.  But  the  life  is  the 
all-important  thing.  Doctrine  that  does  not  under 
God  produce  life,  is  more  worthless  than  a  dead 
tree;  you  can  make  fire-wood  of  that,  but  dead 
doctrine,  dry  as  it  is,  you  cannot  even  burn.  Now 
if  our  contention  be  true,  we  find  in  the  innermost 
nature  of  the  divine  Being  the  real  foundation  for 
the  popular  cry,  ''Christianity  is  a  life.''  It  is  so 
because  men  dead  in  sin  have  through  grace 
poured  into  them  the  holy  life  of  God,  and  they 
become  first  of  all  one  with  him  in  the  fundamental 
attribute  of  his  being. 

This  truth,  for  which  we  here  contend,  has  also 
vital  connection  with  our  preaching.  Many  of 
those  to  whom  we  speak  are  spiritually  dead. 
There  is  no  salvation  for  them  unless  they  are 
brought  by  us,  not  only  face  to  face  with  God, 
but  into  touch  with  him  who  has  life  in  himself. 
Men  touch  God  by  faith  in  Christ,  by  personal 
trust  in  him.  Till  then  there  is,  there  can  be,  no 
salvation  for  them.  No  good  works,  no  prayers, 
no  tears,  no  round  of  religious  duties,  can  secure 
the  life  of  God  for  any  soul;  nothing  short  of 
personally  touching  him,  of  being  united  to  him 
by  faith,  can  bring  the  tide  of  God's  life  in  Christ 
into  any  lost  soul.  But  when  any  soul  destitute 
of  a  holy  life,  dead  and  desolate  in  sin,  touches 

[70] 


The  Fundamental  Moral  Attribute 

Christ,  in  whom  dwells  all  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head bodily,  by  a  genuine  faith,  then  in  the  twin- 
kling of  an  eye  death  ceases,  and  spiritual  life 
with  all  its  surging  tides  of  blessing,  of  peace  and 
joy  flows  into  that  soul.  He  that  hath  not  the  Son 
hath  not  life ;  but  he  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life ; 
and  that  life,  as  the  great  Apostle  wrote,  is  hid 
with  Christ  in  God.  So  in  the  light  of  our  subject 
we  can  have  no  success  in  preaching  except  as 
we  preach  Christ,  and  under  God  bring  men  into 
touch  with  Christ  by  their  faith.  No  wonder  that 
Paul  said,  ^'I  determined  not  to  know  anything 
among  you  save  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified. '  ^ 
For  only  he  who  died  for  us  and  rose  again,  and 
lives  forevermore  can  make  dead  souls  live. 


[71] 


THE   IMPORT    OF   JOHN  21:15-17 


THE   IMPORT    OF   JOHN  21:15-17 

It  seems  to  me  to  be  probable  that  the  Gospel 
usually  attributed  to  the  Apostle  John  closes  with 
the  twentieth  chapter.  Its  concluding  sentences 
are, — ^^Many  other  signs  therefore  did  Jesus  in 
the  presence  of  the  disciples,  which  are  not  writ- 
ten in  this  book:  but  these  are  written,  that  ye 
may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God;  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  his 
name. ' '  Here  the  author  refers  to  certain  events 
which  he  has  not  incorporated  in  his  writing ;  calls 
what  he  has  written  ^^this  book,'^  and  specifically 
states  the  object  which  he  had  in  view  in  writing 
it.  If  there  were  not  another  chapter,  every  intel- 
ligent reader  would  regard  this  as  a  very  natural 
and  fitting  close  to  all  that  goes  before  in  this 
Gospel. 

Still,  what  is  presented  in  the  opening  sentences 
of  the  twenty-first  chapter  is  very  closely  and 
vitally  linked  with  the  events  before  related: 
**  After  these  things  Jesus  manifested  himself 
again  to  the  disciples  at  the  Sea  of  Tiberias.  ^^ 
It  is  not,  therefore,  surprising  that  some  thought- 
ful interpreters  should  conclude,  that,  notwith- 
standing the  last  words  of  the  preceding  chapter 
seem  to  note  a  formal  close  of  the  Gospel,  it  did 
not  end  there,  but  instead,  the  author  wrote  right 

[75] 


Science  and  Prayer 

on  without  lapse  of  time  or  break  of  thought  to 
the  close  of  the  twenty-first  chapter.  Neverthe- 
less, to  my  own  mind,  the  most  natural  and  satis- 
factory view  is  that  the  Gospel  really  closes  with 
the  last  words  of  the  twentieth  chapter ;  and  that' 
after  a  longer  or  shorter  period  the  author  added 
what  we  have  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  as  a 
postscript.  By  the  concatenation  of  events  it  is 
vitally  linked  with  the  preceding,  but  in  form  it 
appears  to  be  something  added  to  that  which  had 
been  considered  as  finished.  This  view  satisfac- 
torily accounts  both  for  the  juxtaposition  of 
thought  and  the  form  of  literary  expression. 

The  author's  motive  for  writing  this  postscript 
seems  to  have  been  twofold.  First,  his  Gospel 
may  have  been  criticised  as  fragmentary  and  in- 
complete. He  therefore  decided  to  add  an  account 
of  the  very  important  manifestation  of  the  risen 
Lord  to  his  disciples  at  the  Sea  of  Tiberias.  Hav- 
ing done  this,  at  the  close  of  the  postscript  he 
formally  defends  the  incompleteness  of  his  Gospel 
by  saying,  **  And  there  are  also  many  other  things 
which  Jesus  did,  the  which,  if  they  should  be 
written  every  one,  I  suppose  that  even  the  world 
itself  could  not  contain  the  books  that  should  be 
written.''  But,  in  the  second  place,  from  what 
transpired  at  this  third  manifestation  of  Christ 
to  his  disciples,  a  report  sprang  up  and  had  gone 
abroad  among  believers  that  Jesus  had  declared 
that  the  author  of  this  Gospel  should  not  die.  It 
was  a  false  report  and  on  that  ground  alone,  an 
honest  man  would  be  strongly  moved  to  contradict 

[76] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

it ;  but  the  report  put  the  writer  into  wrong  rela- 
tions with  his  fellow  disciples.  As  the  brethren 
of  Joseph  regarded  him  as  a  favorite  of  their 
father,  so,  if  this  false  rumor  should  remain  un- 
contradicted, the  disciples  might  regard  the  writer 
of  this  Gospel  as  one  on  whom  Jesus  had  con- 
ferred special  honors.  If  the  report  should  not 
be  corrected,  it  might  awaken  jealousies,  jeop- 
ardize the  success  of  the  apostle's  labor,  and  stand 
in  the  way  of  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  So,  near  the  close  of  his  postscript  he 
takes  pains  explicitly  and  positively  to  contradict 
it. 

If  it  should  be  asked  why  the  author  did  not  in 
his  postscript  simply  deny  the  false  rumor  con- 
cerning himself,  without  treating  at  considerable 
length  the  third  manifestation  of  Jesus  to  his  dis- 
ciples after  his  resurrection,  the  obvious  answer 
is,  that  he  felt  it  to  be  important  to  place  fully 
before  the  disciples  all  the  circumstances  out  of 
which  such  a  rumor  arose.  Thus  all  could  see  how 
naturally  it  sprung  up,  and  that  it  was  simply  a 
perversion  of  a  very  important  ethical  lesson. 
This  lesson  we  shall  consider  later  in  its  proper 
relation. 

That  the  body  of  the  Gospel  and  this  postscript 
were  written  by  the  same  hand  scarcely  admits  of 
a  doubt.  Both  were  evidently  penned  by  an  eye- 
witness. We  grant  that  there  may  be  some  inci- 
dents delineated  in  this  Gospel  of  which  the  writer 
may  not  have  been  personally  cognizant  and  which 
may  have  been  reported  to  him  by  Jesus  himself ; 

[77] 


Science  and  Prayer 

but  nearly  the  whole  of  this  Gospel  is  manifestly 
the  testimony  of  what  the  writer  saw  and  heard. 
Take  for  instance  the  record  of  the  first  miracle 
at  Cana  of  Galilee,  where  as  invited  guests  at  a 
wedding  were  Jesus,  his  mother  and  his  disciples. 
During  the  progress  of  the  feast  the  wine  is  ex- 
hausted. On  account  of  it  the  family  is  greatly 
embarrassed,  and  Jesus  ^  mother,  sharing  in  their 
anxiety,  hastens  to  her  Son  and  delicately  sug- 
gests to  him  that  he  should  work  a  miracle  to  meet 
the  exigency.  He  gently  rebukes  her.  She,  how- 
ever, nothing  daunted,  said  to  the  servants, 
**  Whatsoever  he  saith  unto  you,  do  if  In  due 
time  he  said  to  them,  **Fill  with  water  the  six 
stone  waterpots,'*  and  they  filled  them  up  to  the 
brim.  Then  in  the  presence  of  its  Lord  the  water 
blushes  into  wine ;  whereupon  he  commands  them 
to  draw  it  out  and  bear  it  to  the  ruler  of  the  feast. 
He  in  astonishment  comments  on  the  superior 
excellence  of  the  wine.  If  any  one  should  now  tell 
a  story  of  a  wedding,  artlessly  painting  the  scene 
in  all  of  its  interesting  details,  the  hearer  would 
instinctively  exclaim,  *'Why,  you  were  there 
then ! ' ' ;  and  the  hearer  would  think  for  the  nonce 
that  he  was  there  too.  What  may  be  said  of  this, 
we  are  also  constrained  to  say  of  most  of  the 
scenes  depicted  in  this  Gospel.  Jesus  at  Jacob's 
well,  in  the  household  at  Bethany,  at  the  grave 
of  Lazarus,  in  the  upper  room  where  he  said  to 
Thomas,  *' Reach  hither  thy  finger  and  see  my 
hands,''  and  many  other  notable  incidents  are  so 
narrated  that  ordinary,  intelligent  readers  never 

[78] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

for  a  moment  doubt  that  we  have  here  the  words 
of  one  who  saw  and  heard  what  he  reports. 

If  we  turn  to  this  postscript  we  find  the  same 
subtle,  convincing  evidence  that  the  writer  of  it 
declared  what  was  presented  to  his  eye  and  ear. 
There  were  together  seven  disciples;  three  of 
them  are  named  by  the  writer  and  partially  de- 
scribed; two  are  not  named  but  are  so  described 
that  we  know  who  they  were ;  two  others  are  not 
identified.  Then  we  have  the  declaration  by  the 
foremost  disciple  that  he  is  going  a  fishing,  and 
the  quick  response  of  the  rest  that  they  would  go 
with  him.  Then  follows  their  fruitless  toiling 
during  the  night,  the  stranger  on  the  shore  just 
at  the  grey  dawn,  his  friendly  salutation,  and  his 
direction  as  to  handling  the  net  which  brought 
instant  success,  the  swim  of  Peter  to  the  shore, 
the  burning  coals,  the  bread,  the  fish,  the  break- 
fast, the  colloquy  that  followed, — all  so  unmis- 
takably suggest  the  words  of  an  eye  and  ear  wit- 
ness, that  a  fool  could  not  err  in  reference  to  it. 
If  an  eye-witness  wrote  this  Gospel  and  this  post- 
script of  it,  they  were  not  written  by  some  elder, 
whose  name  was  John,  who  lived  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century. 

Again,  the  style  of  both  the  Gospel  and  the  post- 
script shows  that  the  same  hand  that  wrote  the 
one  wrote  also  the  other.  The  style  of  this  writer 
is  distinctive,  unique ;  it  is  distinctive  in  its  severe 
simplicity;  in  its  clear  and  subtle  distinctions; 
in  its  suggestions  of  vast  unexplored  regions  of 
thought.     The  critics  say  that  he  did  not  write 

[79] 


Science  and  Prayer 

good  Greek,  classical  Greek;  grant  it,  but  lie  so 
wrote  that  lie  has  impressed  and  stirred  the  pro- 
f  oundest  intellects  of  all  the  ages  of  the  Christian 
church,  and  has  also  been  read  with  special  delight 
and  profit  by  the  lowly  of  all  lands.  And  this 
simple,  subtle,  suggestive  style  characterizes  both 
the  Gospel  and  its  postscript. 

Moreover,  this  eye-witness  with  his  unmatched 
style  sets  forth  in  both  the  Gospel  and  the  post- 
script the  same  great  thought.  "While  fully  and 
unhesitatingly  presenting  to  us  the  humanity  of 
Christ,  he  wrote  that  he  might  set  forth  with 
special  emphasis  his  divine  nature,  his  deity.  So 
the  first  sentence  of  his  Gospel  is:  **In  the  begin- 
ning,'' in  eternity,  ^^was  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.''  **And 
the  Word  became  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us  (and 
we  beheld  his  glory,  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten 
[begotten  as  no  other  being  ever  was]  from  the 
Father),  full  of  grace  and  truth."  In  Jesus'  con- 
flict with  the  Pharisees  he  announces  himself  as 
that  bread  that  came  down  from  heaven,  of  which 
if  a  man  eat  he  shall  never  hunger ;  he  claims  that 
he  shall  raise  the  dead  and  judge  the  world,  and 
calls  upon  all  men  to  honor  him  even  as  they  honor 
the  Father;  he  declares  that  he  existed  before 
Abraham,  that  he  that  hath  seen  him  hath  seen 
the  Father,  that  all  that  the  Father  possesses  he 
possesses, — **A11  things  that  are  mine  are  thine, 
and  thine  are  mine";  he  prays  to  the  Father, 
**  Glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self  with  the 
glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world 

[80] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

was/'  And  just  at  the  close  of  the  Gospel, 
Thomas,  delivered  from  all  doubt  of  Christ's 
resurrection,  said  unto  him,  **My  Lord  and  my 
God.''  Then  the  writer  of  the  Gospel  adds: 
**  These  things  are  written,  that  ye  may  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God." 

The  great  truth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God, 
the  divine  Lord,  is  also  the  central,  unifying 
thought  of  the  postscript.  It  is  the  risen  Lord 
that  manifests  himself  on  the  shore  of  the  Sea 
of  Tiberias,  provides  food  for  his  hungry  follow- 
ers, controls  the  fish  of  the  sea,  presents  himself 
as  the  supreme  object  of  their  love,  commands 
the  foremost  disciple  to  follow  him,  unveils  to 
him  the  manner  of  his  death,  and  speaks  of  his 
own  future  coming. 

Who  is  the  eye-witness  that  wrote  both  this  Gos- 
pel and  postscript  alike  in  style,  and  dominated 
by  the  same  great  vitalizing  thought,  a  divine 
Saviour?  The  writer  himself  replies:  **I  am  he 
who  leaned  back  on  his  breast  (on  Jesus'  breast) 
at  the  supper,  and  said,  ^Lord,  who  is  he  that 
betrayeth  Thee  f '  I  wrote  these  things,  and  know 
that  what  I  have  written  is  true. ' '  And  after  all 
the  hair-splitting  criticism  of  the  past  and  of 
today,  on  good  and  sufficient  evidence  we  hold 
fast  to  the  position  that  John  the  apostle  wrote 
both  the  Gospel  and  the  postscript. 

But  a  more  important  matter  demands  our  at- 
tention. What  is  the  real  significance  of  this 
postscript!  What  is  its  central,  unifying  idea? 
Is  it  not  Peter's  confession  of  supreme  love  to 

[81] 


Science  and  Prayer 

the  divine  Christ  and  his  public  restoration  to  the 
office  that  the  Master  had  called  him  to  fill,  and 
from  which,  by  his  denial  he  had  fallen?  So  far 
as  we  are  able  let  us  grasp  the  meaning  of  this 
great  passage  of  Scripture. 

Since  his  resurrection,  Jesus  had  already  ap- 
peared twice  to  the  eleven;  once  to  ten  of  them 
on  the  evening  of  his  resurrection  day,  in  the 
upper  room  at  Jerusalem,  Thomas  being  absent ; 
one  week  later  in  the  same  room  to  them  all, 
Thomas  being  present,  when  with  all  the  ardor 
of  his  nature  he  said  to  Christ,  ''My  Lord  and 
my  God."  Now  for  many  days  Jesus  left  these 
disciples  to  their  own  reflections.  At  last  time  be- 
gan to  hang  heavily  on  mind  and  heart ;  for  their 
own  happiness  they  needed  employment.  Most  of 
them  also  were  poor.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  their 
purses  needed  replenishing.  In  these  circum- 
stances it  was  very  natural  for  them  to  turn  to 
that  calling  with  which  they  were  most  familiar. 
And  just  as  we  should  reasonably  expect,  the 
energetic,  impulsive  Peter  was  the  first  to  say  to 
his  fellows,  ''I  go  a  fishing.'^  It  needed  only  this 
declaration  from  him  to  elicit  their  prompt  re- 
sponse, ''We  also  come  with  thee."  They  got 
into  a  boat  in  the  evening  and  pushed  out  a  little 
way  from  shore,  and  began  their  toil  for  the  night. 
There  were  only  seven  of  them,  Peter,  Thomas, 
Nathaniel,  James  and  John,  and  two  others  whose 
names  are  not  mentioned.  As  it  is  sometimes 
with  fishermen,  their  toil  during  the  live-long 
night  was  bootless.    Just  at  the  break  of  day  they 

[82] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

saw,  as  they  supposed,  a  stranger  on  the  shore. 
But  this  stranger  evidently  had  a  lively  interest 
in  them,  for  his  voice  came  sweetly  across  the 
waters,  * '  Children,  have  ye  aught  to  eat  ? ' '  They 
respectfully  answered  the  questioner,  ^*No. ''  Did 
not  the  address,  ^^ children'^  make  them  think  that 
he  was  not  wholly  a  stranger?  He  cried  to  them, 
**Cast  the  net  on  the  right  side  of  the  boat,  and 
ye  shall  find.''  There  was  something  command- 
ing and  compelling  in  the  words  that  he  uttered, 
for  they  at  once  do  his  bidding.  Immediately  the 
net  is  filled  with  fish.  It  is  so  heavy  that  they  are 
not  able  to  draw  it  up  into  the  boat ;  they  can  only 
drag  it  along  in  the  sea.  What  passed  through 
John's  mind  we  do  not  certainly  know.  Perhaps 
he  remembered  a  similar  draught  of  fishes  from 
that  same  sea  soon  after  they  began  to  follow  the 
Lord.  Perhaps  he  thought,  there  stands  the  one 
who  is  Lord  of  *^  whatsoever  passeth  through  the 
paths  of  the  seas. ' '  But  whatever  was  the  process 
of  his  thought,  as  soon  as  the  net  was  filled  with 
fishes,  John  said  to  Peter,  *^It  is  the  Lord!"  When 
Peter  heard  that,  he  girt  his  coat  about  him, 
plunged  into  the  sea  and  swam  straight  to  the 
shore.  He  must  be  the  first  to  greet  his  Lord! 
Peter's  feeling  was  vastly  different  from  what  it 
was  when,  near  the  beginning  of  Christ's  min- 
istry, obeying  the  word  of  Jesus  he  let  down  his 
net  and  enclosed  a  multitude  of  fishes.  At  that 
time  he  fell  down  at  Jesus'  knees,  saying,  *^ Depart 
from  me,  for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  0  Lord";  but 
Peter  had  grown  spiritually  since  that  day.    Now, 

[83] 


Science  and  Prayer 

instead  of  praying  the  Lord  to  depart  from  him 
he  swims  to  the  shore  that  he  may  at  once  be  with 
him.    What  passed  between  them  we  do  not  know. 
The  rest  of  the  disciples  came  in  the  boat  drag- 
ging the  net  with  fishes.    Stepping  upon  the  shore 
an  unexpected  sight  greeted  their  eyes.    There 
were  at  their  feet  glowing  coals,  toasting  bread 
and  broiling  fish.    Their  Lord  had  not  been  un- 
mindful of  their  hunger,  and  had  bountifully  pro- 
vided for  their  wants.    But  since  it  is  his  will  that 
men  should  ever  co-operate  with  him  in  meeting 
their  necessities,  he  said,  ''Bring  of  the  fish  which 
ye  have  now  taken. '  *   It  is  now  the  ardent,  zealous 
Peter,  who,  before  any  of  his  fellow  disciples, 
steps  onto  the  boat,  grasps  the  net  and  drags  it  to 
the  shore.    How  natural  the  action  that  follows ! 
They  all  gather  about  the  full  but  unrent  net  and 
count  the  fishes  taken  out,  perhaps  more  than 
once,  and  find  that  there  are  one  hundred,  fifty 
and   three.    Some    of   them    are    now   probably 
dressed  and  broiled  that  the  repast  may  be  abun- 
dant for  these  hungry  fishermen.    And  when  all 
is  ready,  the  Lord,  the  provider  of  the  table,  says 
to  them,  ''Come  and  break  your  fast,"  just  our 
familiar,  "Come  to  breakfast.'' 

But  thus  far  in  the  passage  there  is  no  hint  that 
the  disciples  talked  with  Jesus.  There  is  a  strong 
indication  that  they  did  not.  They  seemed  to 
have  been  filled  with  reverential  awe.  They  knew 
that  it  was  the  Lord ;  but,  as  gratifying  as  it  would 
have  been  to  have  their  positive  conviction  con- 
firmed by  a  declaration  from  his  lips,  no  one  of 

[84] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

them  ventured  to  ask,  ^  ^  Who  art  thou  ? ' '  And  at 
the  moment  when  the  breakfast  was  fully  pre- 
pared, Jesus  seemed  to  have  been  standing  a 
little  aloof  from  them,  for  he  ^'cometh  and  taketh 
the  bread  and  giveth  them,  and  the  fish  likewise. ' ' 
He  who  provided  the  feast  is  both  the  host  and 
the  servant  of  his  hungry  brethren. 

We  come  now  to  the  great  central  lesson  of  the 
Scripture  in  hand.  The  preceding  lessons  are  of 
high  import.  The  waiting  of  these  disciples  after 
their  risen  Lord  showed  himself  to  them  the  sec- 
ond time  must  have  seemed  to  them  long  and 
weary.  It  must  have  been  a  severe  trial  to  their 
faith.  But  his  third  appearance  to  them  showed 
them  that  their  Lord  had  not  forgotten  or  aban- 
doned them.  Ever  watchful  over  them,  and  still 
training  them  for  their  future  labor,  he  once  more 
taught  them  by  this  draught  of  fishes  that  their 
future  success  in  catching  men,  lifting  them  out  of 
this  world  and  bringing  them  into  his  kingdom,  de- 
pended on  prompt  obedience  to  his  word;  not  by 
their  toil  alone,  however  persistent,  but  by  his 
accompanying  and  energizing  word  should  they 
realize  their  mission.  That  draught  of  fishes  was 
putting  into  concrete  form  the  old,  but  ever  vital 
prophetic  message,  ^^Not  by  might  nor  by  power, 
but  by  my  Spirit  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts. '^  He 
had  also  taught  them  by  the  breakfast  which  he 
had  prepared  for  them  on  the  shore  that  it  was 
his  purpose  to  care  even  for  the  bodily  wants  of 
his  toiling  disciples.  They  were  not  to  expect  lux- 
ury, but  such  wholesome  food  as  would  fit  them 

[85] 


Science  and  Prayer 

for  the  most  efficient  labor  in  saving  souls.  But 
all  this  simply  led  up  to  a  still  more  important 
lesson  for  them  all,  and  especially  for  Peter,  to 
whom  it  was  particularly  directed. 

The  breakfast  was  over.  The  appetites  of  all 
were  satisfied.  The  divine  host,  the  risen  Lord, 
turned  his  eyes  full  upon  Peter.  It  may  have  re- 
minded that  disciple  of  the  look  which  the  suffer- 
ing Saviour  gave  him  in  the  palace  of  Caiaphas, 
which  melted  him  to  repentance ;  and  as  the  risen 
Lord  looked  way  down  into  the  depths  of  Peter's 
heart,  the  searching  words  were  poured  into  his 
ears,  ^*  Simon,  son  of  John  (R.  V.),  lovest  thou  me 
more  than  these  T'  This  disciple  had  received 
from  his  Lord  the  name  of  Peter,  but  in  this  inter- 
view Jesus  discards  it  and  goes  back  to  the  old 
name  of  his  disciple.  In  view  of  what  he  did  at 
his  Lord's  trial  before  Caiaphas,  to  have  called 
him  Peter,  Eock,  would  have  been  little  short  of 
cutting,  bitter  sarcasm.  This,  in  probing  Peter's 
conscience,  the  Lord  avoids. 

Also  in  this  first  question  Jesus  used  the  phrase, 
*  *  More  than  these. ' '  The  interrogatory  was,  ^ '  Do 
you  love  me  more  genuinely,  more  truly  than  do 
your  fellow  disciples?  Is  your  love  superior  to 
that  of  these  brethren  with  whom  you  have  just 
partaken  of  this  frugal  meal  ? ' '  This  carried  Peter 
back  a  few  days  to  the  time  of  his  self-confidence 
and  self-assurance,  to  the  hour  when  his  Lord 
said,  *■  *  All  ye  shall  be  offended  in  me  this  night, ' ' 
and  he  in  his  overweening  trust  in  himself  had 
contradicted  his  Master  and  declared, ' '  If  all  shall 

[86] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

be  offended  in  thee/'  if  all  shall  stumble  into  sin 
because  of  thee,  on  account  of  what  thou  art  or 
dost,  ^^I  will  never  be  offended, '^  I  will  never 
stumble  into  sin,  thus  putting  himself  above  his 
fellows.  And  when  in  spite  of  his  lofty  and  loud 
profession  of  fidelity  Jesus  said  to  him,  ^^This 
night,  before  the  cock  crow,  thou  shalt  deny  me 
thrice,"  he  vehemently  affirmed,  ^^Even  if  I  must 
die  with  thee,  yet  will  I  not  deny  thee.''  But 
while  his  boastful  words  still  rung  in  the  ears  of 
his  fellow  disciples,  he,  on  account  of  what  his 
Lord  was  passing  through,  stumbled  more  deeply 
into  sin  than  any  of  them,  cowardly  denying  his 
Lord,  even  with  cursing  and  swearing.  Of  his 
assumed  superiority  over  his  fellows,  of  his 
boastfulness  and  shameful  fall,  those  words, 
^^more  than  these,"  forcefully  reminded  him. 
But  when  he  answered  the  heart-searching  ques- 
tion, he  made  no  allusion  to  others,  but  simply 
affirmed  his  love  to  his  Lord,  justifying  the  sin- 
cerity of  his  profession  by  appealing  to  the  Lord's 
knowledge  of  his  heart:  **Yea,  Lord,  thou  know- 
est  that  I  love  thee."  Boastfulness  over  others 
is  gone ;  trust  in  the  omniscient  Lord  has  taken  the 
place  of  trust  in  self.  On  the  basis  of  this  profes- 
sion of  his  love,  the  Master  bade  him,  *  *  Feed  my 
lambs. ' ' 

But  the  Lord  said  the  second  time,  * '  Simon,  son 
of  John,  lovest  thou  me?"  and  received  the  same 
answer  as  before;  and  on  the  basis  of  Peter's 
twice-professed  love  he  bade  him,  ^^Tend  my 
sheep." 

[87] 


Science  and  Prayer 

But  the  third  time  the  same  question  came  from 
the  lips  of  the  risen  Lord,  and  **  Peter  was 
grieved  because  he  said  unto  him  the  third  time, 
lovest  thou  meT'    Why  was  he  grieved! 

Ordinarily  such  repetition  of  a  question  would 
suggest  to  the  one  interrogated  that  the  ques- 
tioner doubted  his  truthfulness.  But  Peter's 
twice-repeated  *'Thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee'' 
seems  to  me  to  preclude  the  entertainment  of  any 
such  notion  by  him.  And  Jesus'  commands, 
**Feed  my  lambs, — tend  my  sheep,"  apparently 
show  that  Jesus  thoroughly  believed  that  Peter 
was  honest  and  that  his  love  was  genuine.  So 
Peter  could  not  have  been  grieved  by  entertain- 
ing the  notion  that  the  Lord  doubted  him. 

His  grief  arose  from  the  fact  that  the  third 
repetition  of  the  question  brought  back  vividly 
and  powerfully  the  whole  scene  of  his  cowardly 
denial.  Before  his  fall  Jesus  said  to  him,  *  *  Thou 
shalt  deny  me  thrice ' ' — three  times.  When  he  had 
entered  into  the  court  of  the  palace  of  Caiaphas, 
the  maid  that  kept  the  door  accused  him  of  being 
a  disciple  of  the  Nazarene,  and  he  denied  it.  He 
now  retreated  from  the  fire  in  the  open  court, 
where  he  was  warming  himself,  into  the  shadow 
of  the  arch  that  led  from  the  street  to  the  court; 
but  very  soon  another  maid  saw  him  and  said  to 
the  crowd  in  the  court,  **This  man  also  was  with 
Jesus  the  Nazarene,"  and  he  denied  it  with  an 
oath  and  reiterated  this  denial  when  those  stand- 
ing around  the  fire  in  the  open  court,  joining  the 
maid  in  her  accusation,  asked  him,  **Art  thou  also 

[  88  ] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

one  of  his  disciples  T'  Twice  now,  before  all 
those  in  the  open  court  he  has  denied  his  Lord, 
confirming  his  last  denial  with  a  solemn  oath. 

About  an  hour  after,  they  in  the  open  court 
declared  to  Peter,  *'0f  a  truth  thou  art  also  one 
of  them,  for  thy  speech  betrayeth  thee,''  thou  art 
a  Galilean.  And  one  of  them  directly  appealed  to 
him,  '*Did  I  not  see  thee  in  the  garden  with  him?" 
Peter  now  lost  his  balance,  began  to  curse  and 
swear,  and  declare  between  his  oaths  that  he  did 
not  know  Jesus.  This  is  the  third  denial.  Now 
the  Lord  turned  and  looked  upon  Peter.  Then 
the  crowing  of  the  cock  brought  to  the  mind  of 
the  faithless  disciple  Jesus'  words,  '* Verily  I  say 
unto  thee,  that  this  night,  before  the  cock  crow, 
thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice" — three  times.  Keenly 
conscious  of  his  threefold  denial  Peter  wept,  and 
went  out  of  the  court  and  found  some  secret  place 
and  there  wept  bitterly.  That  three-fold  denial 
prophesied  by  Christ,  enacted  by  Peter,  was 
branded  upon  the  very  substance  of  his  soul.  He 
could  never  forget  it.  Tradition  says  that  ever 
after  there  was  a  tear  in  his  eye.  Jesus  by  the 
words,  *^more  than  these,"  had  already  carried 
him  back  to  the  hour  of  his  boastful  self-confi- 
dence, and  the  whole  sad  history  that  followed  was 
vividly  before  him.  He  heard  the  Master  again, 
**Thou  shalt  deny  me  three  times," — his  three 
awful  denials  sounded  through  the  halls  of  his 
memory;  nothing  so  aroused  and  touched  him  to 
the  quick  as  that  three  times.  This  the  Master 
knew ;  and  that  he  might  probe  his  disciple 's  con- 

[89] 


Science  and  Prayer 

science  to  the  core,  three  times  he  asked,  *  ^  Simon, 
son  of  John,  lovest  thou  me  ? ' '  But  when  he  asked 
it  the  third  time,  Peter 's  soul  was  pierced  with  the 
sharpest  grief,  and  he  answered,  very  likely  with 
tears  and  sobs,  *^Lord,  thou  knowest  all  things; 
thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee. ' '  ''  Jesus  said  unto 
him.  Feed  my  sheep. ' ' 

What  was  the  Lord's  object  in  all  this?  Surely 
he  would  not  have  caused  his  disciple  to  feel  any 
unnecessary  pang.  But  Peter  had  greatly  sinned. 
The  fact  that  all  things  considered  he  was  the 
foremost  disciple  made  his  offence  all  the  greater. 
So  the  Lord  determined  thoroughly  to  probe  his 
conscience;  that  through  and  through  he  might 
be  contrite  and  might  realize  in  the  very  depths 
of  his  consciousness  that  he  had  repented  of  his 
great  sin.  And  it  was  important  also  that  he 
should  make  his  three-fold  confession  of  his 
love  for  Jesus  before  his  fellow  disciples,  that 
they  too  might  be  fully  and  impressively  assured 
of  the  depth  and  genuineness  of  his  compunction. 

Nor  must  we  forget  that  he  had  been  openly 
chosen  by  Christ  to  do  a  great  and  specific  work, 
and  had  been  put  by  him  into  the  most  exalted 
office  of  the  infant  church.  On  the  one  hand  he 
was  called  to  be  a  fisher  of  men — that  was  his  dis- 
tinctive task ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  he  with  others 
had  been  separated  from  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
followers  of  Christ  and  made  an  apostle, — that 
was  his  high  station. 

Moreover,  with  two  others  he  had  been  distin- 
guished even  from  the  twelve  and  drawn  into 

[90] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

closer  personal  relations  with  his  Lord  than  they. 
On  account  of  this  intimate  relationship  he  went 
with  Jesus  up  into  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration. 
In  an  ever  memorable  interview  he  had  been  fore- 
most    in     confessing     that     Jesus     was     ''the 
Christ,    the     Son    of    the    living    God/'     and 
in    turn   had    received    the    special    blessing    of 
his    Lord.      When    Jesus    felt    the    sorest   need 
of    human    sympathy,    Peter    with    James    and 
John    had    gone    with    him    into    the    shadow 
and  gloom   of    Gethsemane.     But    by   his    open 
and    thrice-repeated    denial    of    the    Lord    who 
had  so  highly  honored  him,  he  had  miserably 
fallen   from  his   high   vocation   and   office    and 
brought  discredit  upon  his  great  confession.     It 
was  therefore  necessary  that  his  restoration  to 
his  work  and  office  should  be,  if  possible,  as  public 
and  conspicuous  as  had  been  his  denial  and  fall. 
He  himself  needed  to  know  that  his  Lord  had  not 
only  forgiven  his  great  sin,  but  had  recalled  him 
to  his  work  and  had  put  him  once  more  into  his 
former  position.    If  in  the  future  he  was  to  work 
effectively  for  the  salvation  of  men,  there  must 
not  be  so  much  as  one  faint,  lingering  doubt  of  his 
complete  pardon  by  his  Lord  and  full  restoration 
to  his  work  and  apostleship.    This  was  necessary, 
not  only  for  him,  but  also  for  his  fellow  apostles. 
To  insure  their  faith  in  Peter  and  in  his  leader^ 
ship,  they  too  must  know  beyond  a  peradventure 
that  the  past  had  been  blotted  out  by  Christ,  and 
that  he  who  under  stress  and  in  fear  had  denied 
his  Lord,  had  once  more  his  full  confidence,  and 

[91] 


Science  and  Prayer 

was  re-commissioned  by  him  to  do  the  work  and 
to  fill  the  office  to  which  he  was  originally  called. 

So  the  Master,  in  the  presence  of  six  of  Peter's 
apostolic  associates,  bids  him  three  times,  answer- 
ing to  his  threefold  denial  and  threefold 
confession  of  love,  to  care  for  and  nour- 
ish the  lambs  and  sheep  of  his  flock.  If, 
in  the  future,  some  one  objecting  should  say, 
**Why  is  this  apostle,  who  thrice  denied  his  Lord, 
so  prominent  and  aggressive  in  service?'' — six 
men,  associates  with  him  in  labor,  could  bear  wit- 
ness that  the  risen  Lord,  in  their  presence  and 
hearing,  three  times  commanded  him  to  do  this 
work;  he  solemnly  re-commissioned  him  thrice 
over  to  care  for  those  who  believe  in  him  and  fol- 
low him;  over  against  each  shameful  denial  he 
placed  his  renewed  commission,  **Feed  my  lambs; 
Feed  my  sheep."  And  if,  thereafter,  the  con- 
science of  Peter  at  times  should  accuse  him  afresh 
for  his  recreant  acts  and  words  in  the  palace  of 
Caiaphas — as  it  doubtless  did — he  would  hear" 
over  against  his  repeated  denial  the  Master's  re- 
peated re-commission,  and  be  reassured  and 
comforted  and  enabled  to  go  on  in  peace  with  his 
great  work. 

While  his  work  was  one,  it  was  two-sided.  He 
was  under  Christ  to  bring  men  out  of  the  world 
into  the  kingdom  of  God;  according  to  the  terms 
of  his  original  commission  he  was  to  catch  men — 
and  then  nourish  them  and  build  them  up  *4nto 
the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of 
Christ."    Peter  certainly  did  the  first;  how  suc- 

[92] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

cessfully  the  results  of  his  preaching  at  Jerusalem 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  subsequently  in  the 
house  of  Cornelius  in  Caesarea  testify.  But  it  is 
worthy  of  note  that  when  the  risen  Lord,  at  the 
Sea  of  Tiberias,  re-commissioned  Peter  it  was  the 
second  phase  of  his  work  that  he  specially  empha- 
sized, the  nourishing,  the  caring  for  the  sheep. 
Jesus  had  intimated  to  Peter,  even  before  his  de- 
nial, that  this  was  to  be  his  pre-eminent  task. 
Predicting  his  temporary  downfall,  he  said — oh, 
with  what  tender  solicitude — ^ '  But  I  made  suppli- 
cation for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not ;  and  do  thou 
when  once  thou  hast  turned  again,  establish  thy 
brethren.''  The  Epistles  of  Peter  bear  witness 
that  the  apostle  gave  himself  with  great  assiduity 
to  the  work  of  feeding  *^the  elect  who  are  so- 
journers of  the  Dispersion  in  Pontus,  Galatia, 
Cappadocia,  Asia  and  Bithynia. ' '  And  in  his  first 
Epistle  the  once  self-confident  apostle  strength- 
ened the  brethren  not  only  with  the  great  central 
truths  of  the  Gospel,  but  also  out  of  the  depths  of 
his  own  experience  as  he  wrote:  **Yea,  all  of  you 
gird  yourselves  with  humility,  to  serve  one  an- 
other; for  God  resisteth  the  proud'' — that  is  the 
cry  from  Peter's  soul,  when  he  went  out  and  wept 
bitterly — *^but  giveth  grace  to  the  humble" — an 
echo  of  what  was  granted  to  contrite  humble  Peter 
when  his  risen  Lord,  forgiving  and  forgetting  his 
great  sin,  said  to  him,  **Feed  my  lambs." 

And  we  must  not  fail  to  notice  that  the  Lord 
in  this  personal  colloquy  with  Peter  made  love, 
just  as  Paul  did,  the  supreme  grace.    He  did  not 

[93] 


Science  and  Prayer 

ask  his  penitent  apostle  whether  he  believed  in 
him,  or  had  hope  of  eternal  life,  but  whether  he 
loved  him,  and  on  the  emphatic  confession  of  that 
grace  he  publicly  restored  him  to  his  work  and 
office.  The  Lord  demanded  positive,  unmistakable 
love  because  that  grace  pre-eminently  determines 
character.  What  a  man  loves  reveals  unerringly 
what  he  is. 

Moreover,  the  object  towards  which  we  must 
exercise  supreme  love  is  here  clearly  presented 
to  us.  ^^Lovest  thou  mef'^  Jesus  did  not  ask, 
^^Dost  thou  love  GodT' — although  he  had  taught 
with  iteration  and  emphasis  that  the  first  great 
commandment  is,  **Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  mind"  (Matt.  22:  37).  Did  he  then 
in  this  colloquy  with  Peter  repudiate  what  he  had 
before  taught  ?  Nay,  verily !  He  who  talked  with 
penitent  Simon,  ^*in  the  beginning'' — in  eternity 
— **was  with  God,  and  was  God.*'  It  was  he  con- 
cerning whom  Jehovah  said:  **Let  all  the  angels 
of  God  worship  him.''  He  had  become  flesh  and 
dwelt  among  us.  He  had  conquered  death  on  our 
behalf.  Just  because  he  was  God,  he  claimed  for 
himself  the  absolute  love  of  Peter.  **Lovest  thou 
me?"  Before  his  crucifixion  he  said  to  Philip: 
*^He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father"; 
and  with  his  reiterated  question  to  Simon  before 
us,  without  any  fear  of  making  a  mistake,  we  can 
add:  ^^He  that  loves  the  risen  Lord  loves  the 
Father."  That  the  Father  is  well  pleased  when 
we  render  supreme  love  to  Christ,  Jesus  declares 

[94] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

in  these  words ;  ^*He  that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved 
of  my  Father '^  (John  14:  21). 

But  in  the  report  of  Christ's  conversation  with 
penitent  Peter  on  the  shore  of  Tiberias,  do  the 
words  used  by  John  to  designate  the  act  of  loving 
throw  any  special  light  on  this  great  transaction? 
In  the  first  and  second  questions  we  have  agapao; 
this  word  signifies  loving  with  esteem;  it  usually 
involves  the  notion  of  admiration  of  righteous 
character,  and  the  purpose  of  bestowing  kindness 
on  the  one  esteemed  and  admired.  Its  Latin  syn- 
onym is  diligo.  It  is  a  word  that  pre-eminently 
expresses  the  Christian  conception  of  loving. 

In  the  third  question  we  find  phileo.  This  sig- 
nifies love  which  expresses  itself  through  feeling, 
emotion;  it  conveys  the  notion  of  instinctive, 
warm,  personal  affection.  This  verb  is  found  in 
every  one  of  Peter's  replies;  probably  expressing 
his  warm  personal  affection  for  Jesus.  Its  Latin 
synonym  is  amo.  Some  interpreters  think  that 
Jesus'  use  of  phileo  instead  of  agapao,  in  the 
third  question,  was  what  caused  the  grief  of 
Peter;  they  suggest  that  the  word  made  Peter 
think  that  the  Lord  called  in  question  his  per- 
sonal attachment  to  him,  and  this  broke  the  heart 
of  the  ardent  disciple. 

But  all  such  interpretations,  it  seems  to  me, 
inject  into  the  text  what  it  does  not  contain.  We 
grant  freely  that  there  is  a  distinction  between  the 
two  verbs,  agapao  and  phileo;  but  the  demarca- 
tion between  them  i5  not  rigid  and  absolute.  The 
classical  Greek  writer  expressed  by  phileo  not 

[95] 


Science  and  Prayer 

only  warm  personal  love,  but  also  love  of  esteem 
for  character.  But,  confining  ourselves  simply  to 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  clear  that 
in  them  these  two  words  were  sometimes  used  in- 
terchangeably. To  be  sure,  agapao  is  used  in  a 
very  large  majority  of  the  passages  where  the  act 
of  love  is  set  forth,  but  not  in  all.  And  it  is  not 
always  used  to  express  esteem  for  righteousness 
or  righteous  character,  but  sometimes  to  express 
the  love  of  self  and  pelf.  For  example,  the  Phari- 
sees loved  {agapao)  the  chief  seats  in  the  syna- 
gogue (Luke  11:43),  and  Balaam,  the  son  of 
Beor,  loved  {agapao)  the  hire  of  wrong-doing. 
And  while  agapao  is  more  frequently  employed 
by  New  Testament  writers  than  phileo,  the  lat- 
ter is  often  used  by  them  to  set  forth  love  not 
only  in  the  lower  but  also  in  the  higher  relations, 
and  they  employed  both  alike  to  express  love  on 
the  same  plane  and  for  the  same  object.  For  ex- 
ample, Jesus  says  of  the  Pharisees  (Matt.  23:6) 
they  love  {phileo)  the  chief  places  at  feasts  and 
the  chief  seats  in  the  synagogue;  whereas  Luke 
reports  (Luke  11:43)  Jesus  as  saying  to  the 
Pharisees,  ''Ye  love  {agapao)  the  chief  seats  in 
the  synagogue.*'  In  these  passages  the  two  verbs 
are  used  interchangeably;  the  one  regarded  as 
fit  as  the  other  to  express  love  for  that  which 
ministers  to  personal  vanity. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  agapao  is  the  word 
used  to  express  love  in  all  the  higher  and  more 
sacred  relations  of  life,  and  we  grant  that  in  the 
New  Testament  it  is  by  far  the  most  frequently 

[96] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

employed  to  set  forth  love  in  such  relations,  but 
by  no  means  exclusively.  For  example,  while 
Paul  (Eph.  5 :  25)  in  one  Epistle  exhorts  husbands 
to  love  (agapao)  their  wives,  in  another  Epistle 
(Titus  2:4)  he  directs  that  the  young  women  be 
trained  to  love  (phileo)  their  husbands  and  their 
children.  Phileo  is  also  used  in  the  same  Epistle 
to  express  brotherly  love  (Titus  3:15) :  **  Salute 
them  that  love  {phileo)  us  in  faith.''  And  in 
1  Pet.  3:8  we  read:  '^Loving  (phileo)  as  breth- 
ren"; the  Greek  word  is  a  compound,  *' brethren- 
lovers.  ' ' 

Phileo  is  also  used  in  the  New  Testament  to 
express  the  love  that  men  should  have  to  the  Lord. 
Paul  wrote  to  the  Corinthians  (1  Cor.  16:22): 
**If  any  man  loveth  (phileo)  not  the  Lord,  let 
him  be  anathema."  And  it  is  also  employed  to 
set  forth  Christ's  love  both  to  his  special  friends 
and  to  his  children.  Of  his  love  to  his  special 
friends  we  have  two  examples,  in  both  of  which 
the  two  verbs  are  used  interchangeably  (John 
11:5) :  **Now  Jesus  loved  (agapao)  Martha,  and 
her  sister,  and  Lazarus" ;  but  as  Jesus  went  weep- 
ing to  the  grave  of  Lazarus,  the  Jews  who  were 
looking  on  said,  *' Behold  how  he  loved  (phileo) 
him."  But,  if  possible,  we  have  a  more  strik- 
ing example  of  the  interchangeable  use  of  these 
verbs  in  the  characterization  of  Jesus'  spe- 
cial love  for  John.  In  John  13:23  we  read: 
*' There  was  at  the  table  reclining  in  Jesus'  bosom 
one  of  his  disciples  whom  Jesus  loved"  (agapao) ; 
but  on  the  morning  of  the  resurrection,  we  are 

[97] 


Science  and  Prayer 

told  by  the  same  writer  (20:2),  that  Mary  Mag- 
dalene **  Cometh  to  Simon  Peter  and  to  the  other 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved ^^  (phileo). 

But  in  the  Eevelation  the  love  of  the  exalted 
and  glorified  Jesus  for  his  followers  is  expressed 
by  phileo  (Eev.  3:19),  **As  many  as  I  love 
(phileo)  I  rebuke  and  chasten/'  But  our  argu- 
ment is  cumulative,  since,  in  the  New  Testament 
the  love  of  God  the  Father  for  his  children  is  ex- 
pressed by  phileo.  Jesus,  in  his  great  farewell 
discourse,  said  to  his  disciples  (John  16:27): 
^*For  the  Father  himself  loveth  you  (phileo),  be- 
cause ye  have  loved  (phileo)  me."  Here  we  have 
both  the  love  of  God  to  his  children  and  their  love 
to  his  eternal  Son  expressed  by  phileo.  But  phileo 
was  regarded  by  John  as  a  fit  vehicle  for  the 
expression  of  the  love  of  God  the  Father  for  his 
only-begotten  Son  (John  5:20).  In  reporting 
Jesus'  words  he  says,  *^For  the  Father  loveth 
(phileo)  the  Son." 

We  see,  then,  that  phileo  is  employed  by  New 
Testament  writers,  and  especially  by  the  writer 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  to  express  love  even  in  all 
the  highest  and  most  sacred  relations  of  men  to 
one  another  and  to  God,  and  of  God  to  men,  and 
even  of  the  Father  to  the  Son.  Moreover,  we  have 
seen  how  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  at 
times,  uses  the  two  verbs,  agapao  and  phileo, 
interchangeably.  If  he  did  this  in  the  body  of 
his  Gospel,  in  all  probability  he  did  it  also  in  the 
postscript  of  his  Gospel.  And  such  marked  dis- 
tinctions between  these  verbs  as  the  critics  have 

[98] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

made,  distinctions  of  which  John  evidently  never 
dreamed,  loads  a  simple  and  important  narrative 
with  far-fetched  philological  speculations  which 
obscure  its  real  meaning,  which  shroud  its  light 
in  mist.  John  probably  instinctively  used  both 
of  these  verbs,  which  are  substantially  synony- 
mous, just  as  any  writer  would  do  now,  simply  to 
give  variety  to  his  diction  and  avoid  monotony  of 
style. 

But  still  another  consideration,  it  seems  to  us, 
ought  to  check  the  speculations  of  commentators 
on  the  difference  in  the  meaning  of  these  two 
verbs.  Whether  Jesus  in  his  colloquy  with  Peter 
used  one  word  to  express  the  act  of  loving  or  two 
words  we  cannot  tell. 

If  he  used  two,  whether  there  was  a  shade  of 
difference  between  them  we  cannot  now  ascertain. 
We  have  no  conclusive  evidence  that  he  spoke 
Greek.  That  he  possibly  might  have  done  so  we 
must  of  course  grant,  since  both  John  and  Peter, 
a  few  years  later,  wrote  in  that  tongue.  But 
scholars  generally  hold  that  Jesus  spoke  Aramaic. 
In  that  dialect  of  the  Hebrew  he  and  Peter  prob- 
ably spoke  with  each  other  on  the  shore  of 
Tiberias.  That  John  has  faithfully  reported  the 
conversation  I,  for  one,  have  not  the  shadow  of  a 
doubt.  But  if  in  the  colloquy  Jesus  used  two 
words  to  express  the  act  of  loving,  nobody  now 
knows  what  they  were,  so  no  one  can  now  intelli- 
gently speculate  about  them.  While  the  two  verbs 
found  in  John's  report,  we  have  already  shown, 
were  used  interchangeably  by  him  in  his  Gospel 

[99] 


Science  and  Prayer 

and  in  all  probability  in  the  twenty-first  chapter, 
which  we  have  treated  as  a  postscript  to  his 
Gospel. 

It  still  remains  for  us  to  inquire  what  is  meant 
by  the  love  on  which  Jesus  so  strenuously  in- 
sisted. Not,  certainly,  simply  emotion  excited  by 
some  object  and  lavished  upon  it.  That  emotion 
attends  love  is  true,  but  it  is  not  the  love  itself. 
In  the  last  analysis  love  is  pre-eminently  prefer- 
ence. One  who  loves  prefers  some  object  above  all 
others,  and  that  preference  bends  all  the  powers 
of  the  one  preferring  to  the  service  of  the  object 
supremely  preferred.  Such  a  preference,  leading 
all  the  activities  of  the  soul  in  its  train  is  always 
attended  with  pleasurable  sensibility,  often  with 
powerful  emotion;  but  to  mistake  the  sensibility 
or  the  emotion  for  the  love,  for  supreme  prefer- 
ence, frequently  leads  to  mischief.  Now,  this  is 
the  purport  of  Jesus '  question  to  Peter.  *  ^  Simon, 
son  of  John,  lovest  thou  me,  preferest  thou  me 
above  all  others?  So  preferest  thou  me  that 
every  energy  of  thy  being  flows  full-tide  into  glad 
service  to  me?'' 

This  question  leads  us  finally  to  ask.  What  are 
the  fruits  of  such  love  I  Regarding  Christ  as  the 
one  supremely  preferred,  such  preference,  such 
love,  naturally  expresses  itself  in  obedience  and 
service.  And  here  we  discern  another  ligament 
which  binds  this  postscript  with  the  body  of  the 
Gospel.  Christ  in  his  last  great  discourse  to  his 
disciples  before  his  agony  in  the  garden  said:  *^If 
ye  love  me  ye  will  keep  my  commandments. ' '  He 

[  100  ] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

here  calls  on  Peter  to  illustrate  this  general  prin- 
ciple in  his  life.  By  his  probing  questions  he 
makes  his  disciple  more  profoundly  conscious  of 
love  to  him;  he  still  further  deepens  Peter's 
consciousness  of  love  by  leading  him  ardently  to 
profess  it  agaiii  and  again,  and  at  each  profession 
of  it  he  calls  upon  him  to  manifest  it  in  obedience 
and  loving  service.  ''Thou  knowest  that  I  love 
thee/'  says  the  penitent  Peter;  ''Then/'  says  the 
risen  Lord,  "show  your  love  by  tenderly  caring 
for  my  sheep." 

But  such  love  not  only  expresses  itself  in  assid- 
uous toil  for  others,  but  it  enables  those  who  exer- 
cise it  to  endure  without  murmur  the  severest 
hardships  and  sharpest  trials  in  the  service  of 
their  divine  Lord.  Jesus  had  no  sooner  said  in 
response  to  Simon's  third  confession  of  his  love, 
"Feed  my  sheep,"  than,  without  a  break,  he  went 
straight  on  to  say  to  him:  "Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  thee,  when  thou  wast  young  thou  girdest 
thyself  and  walkedst  whither  thou  wouldest ;  but 
when  thou  shalt  be  old,  thou  shalt  stretch  forth 
thy  hands  and  another  shall  gird  thee  and  carry 
thee  whither  thou  wouldest  not.  But  this  he 
spake,  signifying  by  what  manner  of  death  he 
should  glorify  God.  And  when  he  had  spoken 
this,  he  said  unto  him.  Follow  me." 

The  writer  has  not  left  us  in  doubt  as  to  the 
main  import  of  these  words ;  they  were  a  prophecy 
that  Peter,  after  he  had  grown  gray  in  his 
Master's  service,  should  suffer  a  violent  death. 
"Thou  shalt  stretch  forth  thy  hands  and  another 

[101] 


Science  and  Prayer 

shall  gird  thee,''  may  be  a  distinctive  prophecy 
that  he  should  be  taken  into  custody  by  the  officers 
of  the  government,  who  would  bind  his  hands 
with  cords,  just  as  they  bound  Jesus'  hands  when 
they  apprehended  him  in  the  Garden  of  Geth- 
semane,  and  carry  him  whither  he  would  not — 
take  him  away  to  his  trial  in  the  court — or  the 
words  may  refer  to  death  by  crucifixion.  When 
one  was  crucified  he  was  not  always  nailed  to  a 
cross,  but  sometimes  lashed  to  it  by  cords.  The 
cross  was  laid  on  the  ground,  the  victim  was  bound 
to  it;  it  was  then  lifted  with  the  victim  upon  it 
to  an  upright  position  and  made  fast  in  the  earth. 
The  few  words  of  Jesus  may  have  been  an  outline 
picture  of  this.  But  if  reasonable  objection  may 
be  made  to  any  specific  interpretation  of  the 
words,  John,  by  his  comment  has  made  it  clear 
that  they  refer  to  Simon's  martyrdom.  And  that 
reveals  their  vital  connection  with  what  goes  im- 
mediately before.  For  when  Jesus  had  predicted 
Simon's  violent  death  he  said  to  him,  *^ Follow 
me."  **Your  love  must  be  such  that  it  will  lead 
you  to  follow  me,  whatever  awaits  you.  You  may 
have  manifold  and  bitter  trials;  a  violent  death 
when  you  are  an  old  man  will  be  your  lot,  never- 
theless, follow  me;  if  that  love  that  you  have 
thrice  so  emphatically  confessed  is  genuine,  you 
will  not  only  gladly  feed  my  sheep,  but  for  my 
sake  you  will  die  without  a  murmur,  lashed  to  a 
cross." 

**But  last  of  all,  if  your  love  is  genuine  it  will 
enable  you  to  be  steadfast  in  my  service  irrespec- 

[102] 


The  Import  of  John  21:15-17 

tive  of  what  I  do  to  others. ' '  Peter  followed  his 
risen  Lord  as  he  walked  along  the  shore  of  the 
Sea  of  Tiberias,  and  looking  back  he  saw  John 
a  little  behind  them,  also  following.  Now  as  the 
Lord  had  lifted  the  curtain  and  revealed  to  Peter 
something  of  his  future,  his  curiosity  was  excited 
to  know  what  was  to  be  John's  career  and  fate; 
so  he  asked :  ^^Lord,  and  what  shall  this  man  do?'' 
Jesus  said  unto  him,  ^*If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till 
I  come  what  is  that  to  thee!"  Then  again  Jesus 
said  to  him,  ** Follow  thou  me."  **No  matter 
how  I  may  order  the  life  of  John,  his  career  and 
fate  do  not  change  your  duty.  If  I  will  that  he 
tarry  on  the  earth  until  I  come  again,  that  will 
not  absolve  you  from  my  service.  If  you  indeed 
love  me  you  will  follow  me,  however  much  the 
condition  of  others  may  differ  from  your  own." 

This  chapter,  then,  so  full  of  varied  and  inter- 
esting incident  is  instinct  with  one  great  thought, 
the  genuine  love  of  the  disciple  for  his  Master. 
All  the  events  in  the  first  of  the  chapter  lead 
directly  up  to  the  question  which  the  risen  Lord 
asks  Simon.  It  is  an  inquiry  as  to  the  fact  of  his 
love  to  Him.  His  love  for  Jesus  is  thrice  con- 
fessed. Its  fruit  is  obedient  service,  no  matter 
how  bitter  the  trials  such  service  may  involve,  or 
how  the  Lord  may  see  fit  to  make  our  condition 
to  differ  from  that  of  others. 

We  have  considered  not  merely  an  interesting 
fact  of  Gospel  history,  but  a  truth  which  *  Hakes 
hold  on  our  business  and  bosoms."  Simon's 
risen  Lord  is  ours  also.    He  asks  us,  as  we  read 

[103] 


Science  and  Prayer 

this  Scripture,  the  same  question  that  He  asked 
him.  James,  son  of  Charles,  lovest  thou  me  I 
Yea,  Lord,  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.  Then 
nurture  those  children  that  I  have  given  thee 
''in  the  chastening  and  admonition  of  the  Lord." 
Theodore,  son  of  Christopher,  lovest  thou  me? 
Yea,  Lord,  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.  Then 
use  honestly  thy  talent  for  making  money,  and 
gather  wealth  not  for  selfish  ends,  but  for  the 
betterment  of  your  fellow  men.  Jacob,  son  of 
Robert,  lovest  thou  me  I  Yea,  Lord,  thou  knowest 
that  I  love  thee.  Then  go  out  into  the  streets 
and  lanes  of  thy  city,  find  those  who  do  not  know 
me  and  tell  them  of  my  love  and  my  salvation. 
Martha,  daughter  of  Alfred,  lovest  thou  me? 
Yea,  Lord,  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.  Then, 
make  home  for  thy  children  the  most  attractive 
place  on  earth,  and  so  far  as  possible  minister  to 
the  sick  and  cheer  the  disconsolate  in  thine  own 
neighborhood,  remembering  that  inasmuch  as 
thou  doest  it  unto  even  the  least  of  these  thou 
doest  it  unto  me.  Both  our  usefulness  and  our 
destiny  are  determined  by  the  answer  that  we  can 
truthfully  give  to  our  risen  Lord's  soul-testing 
question,  ''Lovest  thou  me?'' 


[104] 


THE  REASONABLENESS  OF  ETEENAL 
PUNISHMENT 


THE  REASONABLENESS  OF  ETERNAL 
PUNISHMENT 

God  has  given  to  man  freedom  of  choice  and 
of  action.  All  agree  that  God  made  man  so  far 
forth  free,  that  he  is  strictly  responsible  for  what 
he  deliberately  does.  At  the  same  time  each  man 
has  his  moral  and  spiritual  affinities.  If  his  moral 
character  is  essentially  bad,  if  he  is  spiritually 
corrupt,  so  that  he  loves  and  cherishes  sin,  his 
affinities  lead  him  to  choose  the  society  of  wicked 
men.  If,  though  imperfect,  he  is  at  heart  holy, 
he  seeks  the  society  of  the  holy.  The  spiritual 
affinities  of  men  may,  indeed,  be  changed,  since 
the  characters  of  men  may  be,  and  often  are, 
transformed.  Then  we  see  those  who  have  been 
lovers  of  sin  quitting  the  ranks  of  the  depraved 
that  they  may  join  themselves  to  God's  people. 
But  in  this  world,  where  the  good  and  the  evil 
are  often  strangely  thrown  together,  through 
temporary  motives  and  circumstances,  a  man, 
for  a  season,  may  be  outwardly  united  to  those 
with  whom  he  has  no  spiritual  affinity.  This  was 
the  case  with  Judas.  For  some  reason,  even 
when,  in  the  language  of  Christ,  he  was  a  devil, 
he  joined  himself  to  the  disciples.  Perhaps  he 
retained  his  place  out  of  love  for  the  money-bag 
which  they  asked  him  to  carry,  the  contents 
of  which  probably  often  stuck  to  his  covetous, 

[107] 


Science  and  Prayer 

viscous  fingers.  But  he  was  out  of  place.  And 
when  he  could  make  more  money  by  betraying 
his  Lord  than  he  could  by  following  him,  he  did 
not  hesitate  to  desert  Christ  and  the  disciples, 
to  unite  himself  to  their  enemies,  and  act  the  part 
of  the  traitor.  He  went  where  his  spiritual  affin- 
ities led  him. 

We  find  this  principle  verified  on  every  hand. 
Converted  men  go  straight  into  Christian  society. 
They  can  feel  at  home  nowhere  else.  Those 
wedded  to  sin  seek  the  company  of  the  godless. 
It  requires  much  persuasion,  and  strong  per- 
sonal influence,  to  induce  them  to  spend  even  an 
hour  in  the  place  where  the  holiest  of  God's 
people  meet  to  pray.  Where  worldlings,  or  the 
profane,  or  the  drunken,  or  libertines  assemble, 
they  find  congenial  society.  They  go  voluntarily 
to  their  own  place. 

But  the  same  laws  which  govern  men  in  this 
world  will  govern  them  in  the  next.  Death  does 
not  transform  a  man's  character,  it  simply  re- 
moves him  to  another  place  and  to  other  scenes. 
Crossing  a  river  or  stepping  behind  a  curtain 
does  not  essentially  change  a  man's  moral  nature, 
nor  alter  his  spiritual  affinities.  What  they  were 
on  the  one  side,  they  are  on  the  other.  When 
a  man,  by  death,  steps  behind  the  curtain  which 
hides  from  us  the  unseen  world,  he  continues  to 
be  the  same  man  that  he  was  in  the  moment  of 
dissolution.  The  same  laws  of  thinking,  of  lov- 
ing, of  choosing,  and  willing,  which  controlled  and 
governed  him  here,  control  and  govern  him  there. 

[  108  ] 


Eternal  Punishment 

His  moral  character  and  spiritual  affinities  re- 
main essentially  the  same.  Just  as  he  chose  his 
society  here,  he  chooses  it  there.  If  he  belongs  to 
Christ  and  is  holy,  he  goes  from  choice  to  be  with 
his  Lord  and  with  the  redeemed.  If  he  belongs 
to  Satan,  and  loves  sin,  he  goes,  from  choice,  to 
be  with  the  devil  and  his  angels.  Just  as  Judas 
did,  when  he  had  added  to  the  crime  of  the  be- 
trayal that  of  self-murder,  he  went  to  his  own 
place. 

It  is  a  mistaken  notion  that  God  arbitrarily 
thrusts  men  into  hell,  that,  by  power  exerted 
upon  them  from  without,  he  forces  them  into  a 
place  and  into  society  for  which  they  have  no 
affinity.  He  is  represented  by  the  popular  lan- 
guage of  the  Scriptures  as  casting  them  into  hell, 
but  he  evidently  does  this  without  doing  any  vio- 
lence to  the  established  laws  of  man's  being;  he 
does  it  by  acting  in  and  through  those  laws.  In 
harmony  with  this  thought  Christ  says,  speaking 
of  the  final  judgment  on  the  wicked,  **  these  shall 
go,''  that  is  voluntarily,  ^^into  everlasting  pun- 
ishment," just  as  the  righteous  shall  go  volun- 
tarily *^into  life  eternal."  And  Judas  is  repre- 
sented as  going  voluntarily  to  his  own  place. 

God  does  not  keep  men  out  of  heaven.  He 
plies  them  with  every  possible  motive  to  induce 
them  to  prepare  for  it  and  enter  it.  John,  on  the 
island  of  Patmos,  saw  heaven  as  a  resplendent 
city  of  precious  stones  and  massive  pearls  and 
gold.  He  said  the  gates  of  it  were  not  shut  at 
all  by  day,  and  that  there  was  no  night  there. 

[109] 


Science  and  Prayer 

The  gates  of  heaven  always  stand  wide  open, 
while  **  without  are  dogs  and  sorcerers,  and 
whoremongers,  and  murderers,  and  idolaters,  and 
whosoever  loveth  and  maketh  a  lie^^;  but  the 
angels,  with  all  their  persuasive  eloquence,  could 
not  induce  one  of  those  lost  spirits  to  enter,  even 
for  a  moment,  through  those  open  gates  of  pearl. 
Heaven  is  not  their  place.  They  have  no  affinity 
for  its  holiness. 

^'The  heavenly  gates  stand  open, 

What  is  it  keeps  them  out, 
That  weary  crowd  of  wailers 

Who  stand  and  weep  without? 
What  strange,  mysterious  safeguard 

Protects  the  open  door, 
That  not  one  guilty  footstep 

Has  stained  the  crystal  floor? 

"Ah  soul,  why  wonder  further? 

Turn  but  one  glance  within ; 
Thou  hast  the  dreadful  secret 

Hid  in  thy  heart  of  sin. 
That  heart  which  hates  its  Saviour, 

And  spurns  his  love  untold 
Would  dread  the  pearly  portal, 

And  shun  the  streets  of  gold." 

But  when  wicked  men  have  gone  to  their  own 
place  will  their  spiritual  affinities  ever  be 
so  changed  that  they  will  seek  the  society  of  the 
holy?  This  is  in  substance  the  question  that  has 
been  often  asked.  Some  admit  that  there  is  a 
hell;  but  they  doubt  as  to  whether  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  lost  will  be  eternal.  They  think 
it  possible  that  even  Judas  may  yet  enter  into 

[110] 


Eternal  Punishment 

everlasting  fellowship  with  Christ  whom  he  sold 
for  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  and  then,  having  be- 
trayed him  with  a  hypocritical  kiss,  departed  and 
hung  himself. 

But  is  there,  even  on  philosophical  grounds, 
any  room  for  such  a  view?  Assuredly,  first  of 
all,  the  manifest  effect  of  sin  on  the  human  heart 
is  wholly  at  variance  with  such  a  notion.  There 
is  in  all  who  cherish  and  habitually  commit  sin  an 
alarming  and  powerful  tendency  toward  fixed- 
ness in  it.  Every  act  of  transgression  makes 
stronger  the  bonds  of  the  sinner,  and  lessens  the 
probability  of  his  recovery  from  sin.  This  is  a 
fact  so  notorious  that  it  is  well  understood  by  all. 
In  view  of  it  Jeremiah  exclaimed,  *  *  Can  the  Ethio- 
pian change  his  skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots? 
then  may  ye  also  do  good  that  are  accustomed  to 
do  evil. ' '  Men  enter  hell  whose  habits  of  sinning 
are  already  fixed.  And  every  moment,  as  they 
continue  to  sin,  they  are  growing  into  still  greater 
fixedness  in  evil.  The  longer  one  continues  in  the 
world  of  the  lost,  therefore,  the  farther  any  hope 
of  his  recovery  recedes. 

But  not  only  the  habit  of  sinning  becomes  in- 
veterate, but  there  is  constant  progress  in  moral 
corruption.  Men  never,  even  in  this  life,  stand 
still  in  sin.  They  go  from  bad  to  worse.  They 
constantly  press  their  way  downward  into  greater 
depths  of  iniquity.  The  inward  bias  toward  sin 
is  incessantly  augmented,  while  the  restraints 
of  conscience  from  within,  and  the  checks  of  pub- 
lic opinion  from  without,  are  perpetually  weak- 

[111] 


Science  and  Prayer 

ened.  This  needs  no  proof.  The  awful  fact  is 
patent  to  every  mind.  But  here  there  are  some 
barriers  which  resist  man's  propensities  to  sin. 
Conscience  at  times  awakes  and  utters  its  sharp 
and  solemn  protests.  The  good  speak  words  of 
warning.  Christian  friends  pour  forth  their  ten- 
der entreaties.  The  Sabbath,  the  sanctuary,  and 
the  Bible  confront  the  transgressor  that  they  may 
save  him  from  impending  ruin.  But  when  the 
sinner  shall  have  gone  to  his  own  place,  all  of 
these  checks  to  his  progress  in  evil,  save  per- 
chance one,  will  have  been  withdrawn  forever.  If 
conscience  shall  still  continue  to  reprove  and  lash 
the  lost,  as  it  failed  here  on  earth  permanently  to 
stay  the  sinner's  progress  in  evil,  so  it  must  just 
as  signally  fail  in  the  future  world ;  but,  long  dis- 
regarded, it  may,  perhaps,  sink  into  everlasting 
slumber.  And  in  that  world  of  woe  there  will  be 
none  of  the  good — that  is  not  their  place — to  en- 
treat the  sinning.  No  Sabbath,  no  sanctuary,  no 
Bible,  will  be  there  to  warn  and  bless.  Men, 
there,  will  be  left  to  themselves,  their  tendency  to 
evil  ever  increasing,  while  every  influence  from 
without  will  be  evil,  and  only  evil.  If  men  with 
rapid  pace  sweep  onward  in  sin  here,  how  much 
more  rapidly  there?  What  hope,  we  ask,  can 
there  be  that  the  spiritual  affinities  of  wicked  men 
will  ever  be  changed  after  they  have  voluntarily 
gone  to  their  own  place  ? 

But  many  have  entertained  the  notion  that  pun- 
ishment is  reformatory;  that  if  sin  is  not  eradi- 
cated from  the  human  heart  by  milder  means,  it 

[112] 


Eternal  Punishment 

will,  at  last,  be  burned  out  by  purgatorial  fires. 
There  is  however  no  basis  for  this  view  in  the 
facts  of  human  experience.  What  we  already 
know  disproves  it.  Pain,  anguish,  both  of  body 
and  mind,  is  the  fruit  of  sin;  is  punishment  for 
sin.  No  sane  man  disputes  that.  The  sufferings 
of  our  race  are  so  manifold  and  exquisite  that 
no  tongue  or  pen  can  adequately  portray  them. 
This  heritage  of  woe  has  been  ours  for  thousands 
of  years.  If  punishment  could  reform,  if  it  be  a 
power  by  which  the  nature  of  wicked  men  can  be 
so  changed  that  they  will  loathe  sin,  and  love  and 
seek  holiness,  this  earth  of  ours  would  long  since 
have  become  the  very  paradise  of  God.  But,  after 
all  our  sufferings,  the  earth  is  still  full  of  moral 
corruption.  Just  in  those  portions  where  there  is 
most  of  woe,  there  is  the  most  of  iniquity;  there 
are  the  habitations  of  cruelty. 

If  we  look  at  special  sins  which  are  followed  by 
special  and  awful  penalties,  we  learn  again  that 
punishment  does  not  reform  men,  much  less  trans- 
form them.  The  man  given  to  lust  suffers  the 
most  excruciating  agony,  with  the  full  knowledge 
that  his  pain  is  directly  caused  by  his  sin;  but, 
after  his  paroxysms  of  suffering  are  over,  he 
goes  again  to  his  transgression  and  shame.  The 
drunkard  suffers  again  and  again  all  the  horrors 
of  delirium ;  he  is  overwhelmed  with  fears ;  he  toss- 
es himself  to  and  fro  on  his  bed ;  the  beaded  sweat 
stands  on  his  forehead ;  he  believes  that  serpents 
twine  themselves  about  his  body  and  fasten  their 
poisonous  fangs  in  his  bloated  cheeks ;  he  knows 

[113] 


Science  and  Prayer 

that  this  is  the  awful  penalty  for  his  love  of  the 
cup,  but  it  works  no  reformation.  He  still  rises 
early  in  the  morning  to  seek  strong  drink.  In 
spite  of  all  his  woe  he  clings  to  his  sin  with  un- 
relaxing  grip. 

If  we  turn  to  the  world  ^s  prison  houses  we  see 
how  baseless  is  the  notion  that  men  can  be  morally 
renovated  by  punishment.  The  Egyptian,  the 
Assyrian,  the  Greek  and  Eoman  dungeons  were 
the  synonym  of  horror.  Pains  and  penalties 
were  meted  out  without  mercy.  But  not  a  single 
prisoner  among  all  the  thousands  that  suffered 
amid  damps  and  chills,  in  chains  and  stocks, 
was  ever  transformed  in  moral  character  by 
his  fearful  punishment.  In  fact,  criminals  in 
the  prisons  of  Christian  nations  have  been  mor- 
ally transformed  only  by  the  Gospel.  Not  pun- 
ishment, but  the  revelation  of  divine  love  and 
truth  in  Christ  has  lifted  many  of  them  up  out 
of  sin,  and  brought  them  into  fellowship  with 
God. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  punishment  some- 
times holds  evil  propensities  temporarily  in 
check,  until  the  powers  of  love  touch  the  heart  and 
transform  the  character.  Thus  judicious  punish- 
ment, meted  out  in  kindness  to  children,  may  re- 
strain the  evil  which  is  struggling  to  assert  itself 
until  the  love  of  guardian  or  parent  shall,  through 
the  truth,  work  the  requisite  moral  change.  But 
even  in  the  family,  when  there  is  punishment 
without  love,  that  punishment,  instead  of  working 
reformation,  only  hardens  and  confirms  the  young 

[114] 


Eternal  Punishment 

culprits  in  sin.  The  punishment,  itself,  utterly 
fails  to  renovate  the  moral  nature. 

In  fact,  punishment  in  and  of  itself  was  never 
intended  to  reform  men.  It  does  hold  tempora- 
rily in  check  out-cropping  crime,  for  the  safety 
of  society.  It  does,  as  we  have  said,  for  the  time 
being  restrain  evil  propensities,  till  truth  and  love 
may  touch  and  save  the  erring;  but  its  primary 
object  is  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  justice.  This 
fact  underlies  and  shapes  the  criminal  codes  of 
all  nations.  In  these  laws  certain  punishments 
are  prescribed  for  culprits.  Those  who  framed 
the  laws  have  not  sought,  by  the  prescribed  pen- 
alties, to  secure  the  reformation  of  criminals. 
Law  has  nothing  to  do  with  that.  Legislators, 
therefore,  have  asked,  simply,  what  does  justice 
demand?  And  they  have  attached  to  criminal 
laws  such  penalties  as  in  the  judgment  of  man- 
kind will  meet  and  satisfy  the  claims  of  justice, 
pure  and  simple. 

That  this  is  the  primary  object  of  punishment 
becomes  clear  when  an  entire  community  is 
aroused  by  some  dark  and  bloody  deed.  With 
one  voice  the  multitude  cries  out  for  justice  to 
be  meted  out  to  the  criminal.  The  throng  is  not 
blood-thirsty;  it  is  made  up  of  upright  citizens. 
It  is  not  moved  by  personal  vindictiveness ;  not 
one  in  a  thousand,  perhaps,  has  ever  known  the 
culprit.  There  is  only  one  solution  of  such  a 
problem.  The  sense  of  justice  implanted  by  God 
in  every  human  heart  is  aroused,  expresses  itself, 
puts  forth  its  majestic  and  awful  demand,  and  the 

[  115  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

speedy  and  condign  punishment  of  the  criminal 
by  the  courts  alone  will  satisfy  it. 

That  the  fundamental  aim  of  punishment  is 
not  the  reformation  of  the  transgressor,  but  the 
satisfaction  of  justice,  is  clear  from  the  sufferings 
of  Christ.  He  could  not  be  transformed  in  char- 
acter, for  he  was  sinless.  He  suffered  for  our  in- 
iquities. He  took  on  himself  through  sympathy 
the  penalty  due  to  our  transgression.  In  this 
most  conspicuous  example  of  suffering  in  the  uni- 
verse, we  see  that  reformation  was  not  the  aim  of 
Christ's  measureless  agony. 

If  these  positions  are  true — and  who  can  gain- 
say them? — ^when  wicked  men  have  gone  to  their 
own  place,  we  cannot  reasonably  expect  that 
their  sufferings  will  ever  work  any  transforma- 
tion in  their  characters.  Punishment  reforms  no 
man  here  on  earth;  this  is  not  its  design;  it  cer- 
tainly will  not,  then,  reform  any  man  who,  in  hell, 
has  become  vastly  more  depraved,  and  far  more 
obdurate  in  transgression  than  he  was  in  this  life. 
Men,  neither  here  nor  hereafter,  can  ever  be  tor- 
tured into  holiness. 

But,  men  have  asked,  will  there  not  be  in  the 
future  another  dispensation  of  love  by  which  God 
will  reach  and  save  the  lost?  If  there  could  be, 
who  would  not  rejoice?  but  the  Scriptures 
drop  not  the  slightest  hint  of  any  such  dispensa- 
tion; in  fact,  they  contain  intimations  to  the  con- 
trary. The  Spirit  revealed  to  John  in  Patmos 
that  the  wicked  shall  finally  become  fixed  in  sin. 
It  shall  be  said  concerning  them,  ^*He  that  is  un- 

[116] 


Eternal  Punishment 

just,  let  him  be  unjust  still,  and  he  that  is  filthy, 
let  him  be  filthy  still.''     Christ  in  the  parable  of 
the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  presents  to    us    the 
saved  and  the  lost  in  colloquy  with  each  other. 
The  lost  Dives  does  not  ask  to  be  delivered  from 
the  tormenting  flame.      He  evidently  had  no  hope 
of  that;  perhaps  he  did  not  desire  it;  but  he  asked 
only  for  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  his  tongue,  for 
some   slight  alleviation   of  his  woe.     Thus   the 
Great  Teacher  intimates  that  for  the  wicked  who 
go  to  their  own  place  there  is  no  hope  of  salva- 
tion.     But  in  reference  to  some  of  the  lost,  he 
gives  us  more  than  an  intimation;  he  declares 
positively  that  whoever  shall  blaspheme  against 
the  Spirit,  or  shall  speak  against  the  Holy  Spirit, 
shall  never  be  forgiven,  *^  neither  in  this  world' 
nor  in  that  which  is  to  come.'' 

But  if  there   should  be  another  dispensation 
of  love,    how  could  it  avail,    especially  for  those 
who,  in  spite  of  all  the  gracious  influences  of  the 
Gospel,  have  gone  from  Christian  lands  to  their 
own  place?     Could  they  have,  in  any  other  dis- 
pensation, a  grander  exhibition  of    God's    love 
than  they  now  possess?     God  now  reveals  him- 
self to  them  in  Christ.    And  Christ  is  ^Hhe  bright- 
ness of  God's  glory  and  the  express  image  of  his 
person."     In  Christ  ^^ dwells  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead  bodily."    Here  we  have  the  infinite 
God  made  manifest;  here  we  have  infinite  love 
revealed.     Man  can  never  have  more  than  that. 
And    this    infinite   love   is   manifested   now   by 
Christ's  voluntary  sacrifice  of  himself  on  the  cross 

[117] 


Science  and  Prayer 

that  he  might  save  his  enemies.  Could  infinite  love 
ever  display  itself  in  a  manner  more  tender  and 
touching!  If  men  are  not  won  to  God  by  it  now, 
will  they  be,  can  they  be,  when  in  hell  they  have 
reached  a  pitch  of  depravity  unknown  here  on 
earth?  If  they  hear  not  Christ  now,  neither  will 
they  be  persuaded,  if  in  some  future  dispen- 
sation, God  should  manifest  himself  to  them, 
through  Christ,  in  their  world  of  woe. 

But  this  conclusion,  to  which  we  are  inevita- 
bly brought  by  reasoning  based  on  facts  re- 
vealed to  all  in  natural  law,  is  confirmed  by  the 
clear  utterance  of  God's  word.  We  need  not 
spread  out  the  passages  which  teach  the  doctrine 
of  future  retribution.  They  are  familiar  to  all, 
and  they  are  so  plain  that  a  school-boy  could 
not  mistake  their  certain  import.  Christ,  in  the 
twenty-fifth  of  Matthew,  brings  before  us  the 
scene  of  the  general  judgment,  and  says  concern- 
ing the  wicked,  *' These  shall  go  away  into  eternal 
punishment.''  But  men,  troubled  by  this  doc- 
trine and  by  this  text,  have  said  that  the  Greek 
word  translated  ** eternal"  does  not  mean  unend- 
ing duration,  but  simply  a  long  period.  It  is  true 
that  the  noun,  from  which  the  adjective,  here 
translated  ^^ eternal,"  was  derived,  was  some- 
times used  by  Greek  writers  to  designate  a  limited 
period.  But  the  period  so  designated  was  always 
indefinite ;  its  limits  were  never  indicated ;  so  the 
word  naturally  came  to  designate  the  thought,  as 
nearly  as  we  can  conceive  it,  of  eternity,  which  is 
of  course  unlimited.    And  in  that  sense  it  is  often 

[118] 


Eternal  Punishment 

used  by  Greek  writers.  And  the  adjective  trans- 
lated ** eternal'^  in  the  passage  under  review,  they 
almost  invariably  used  to  express  the  idea  of  un- 
ending duration.  So  that  Liddell  and  Scott,  who 
have  given  to  us  a  Greek  lexicon,  which  for  a  long 
period  has  been  regarded  as  a  standard,  give  to 
this  word  only  two  definitions,  ^  lasting  ^'  and 
*' eternal."  All  really  eminent  Greek  lexicog- 
raphers define  it  in  the  same  way.  There  is 
not  a  stronger  word  in  the  Greek  language  with 
which  to  express  the  thought  of  unending  dura- 
tion. It  is  used  more  than  a  score  of  times  in  the 
New  Testament  to  express  the  unending  bliss  of 
the  righteous.  Christ  not  only  says  the  wicked 
*^ shall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment,"  but 
also  the  ** righteous  into  life  eternal."  Would 
not  the  evangelist,  wishing  to  set  forth  the  un- 
ending blessedness  of  the  redeemed,  naturally 
have  chosen  the  strongest  word  in  the  language 
for  the  purpose?  When  the  author  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  wishes  to  set  forth  the  eternity  of 
God  the  Spirit,  he  writes,  '^The  Eternal  (aionios) 
Spirit.  * '  If  there  had  been  any  stronger  word  in 
the  Greek  language  to  express  unending  duration, 
would  not  the  writer  have  employed  it?  Would 
he  have  used  a  word  of  doubtful  import  when  he 
wished  to  express  the  eternity  of  the  Spirit? 
Yet  this  same  word  is  used  again  and  again  to  set 
forth  the  duration  of  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked. 

In  the  Revelation  the  eternity  of  God  is  set 
forth  at  least  five  times  by  the  phrase,  made  up 

[119] 


Science  and  Prayer 

of  the  word  in  dispute,  *  *  forever  and  ever. ' '  Thus 
an  angel  **  lifted  up  his  hand  to  heaven  and  swore 
by  him  that  liveth  forever  and  ever/'  who  created 
heaven  and  earth  and  sea.  If  any  stronger  word 
could  have  been  found  by  which  the  fact  of  un- 
ending duration  could  have  been  expressed,  it 
would  here  have  been  employed.  No  doubtful 
term  would  have  been  used  to  set  forth  the  dura- 
tion of  the  life  of  God.  But  the  same  word,  the 
same  phrase  is  used  in  this  same  book  to  set  forth 
the  duration  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked, 
*  *  the  smoke  of  their  torment  ascendeth  up  forever 
and  ever. ' '  And  so,  at  great  length,  we  might  go 
on  adding  one  decisive  proof  to  another. 

But  we  are  not  in  our  biblical  proof  shut  up  to 
this  class  of  passages.  The  eternal  punishment  of 
the  wicked  is  taught  in  language  the  meaning  of 
which  the  most  critical  and  captious  would  not  at- 
tempt to  evade.  Christ  himself  warned  men 
against  stumbling  into  sin.  He  said  that  it  would 
be  better  to  cut  off  a  hand  or  a  foot,  or  to  pluck 
out  an  eye,  if  these  members  of  our  body  should 
cause  us  to  sin,  rather  than  go  unmanned  into  hell 
**  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched.''  Jesus  the  embodiment  of  love  and 
mercy,  in  a  few  short  sentences,  speaks  five  times 
of  the  unquenchable  fire,  and  three  times  of  the 
never-dying  worm.  No  matter  how  we  may  ex- 
plain the  metaphors,  the  awful  fact  is  repeated 
again  and  again  that  the  torment  of  the  lost  is 
unending.  The  fact  is  stated  so  clearly,  so  un- 
equivocally, that  one  must  either  receive  it  as  the 

[120] 


Eternal  Punishment 

truth,  or  else  reject  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ. 

We  see,  then,  that  just  as  God  speaks  through 
natural  law,  he  speaks  in  the  Scriptures.  We 
have  not  two  voices,  but  one,  speaking  in  two  dif- 
ferent spheres  but  uttering  the  same  truth. 

Yet,  it  is  asked.  Is  such  a  doctrine  in  harmony 
with  the  benevolence  of  God.  We  have  seen  that 
men  sin  voluntarily.  God  warns  them  by  the 
laws  of  their  own  being  against  it,  and  still  more 
emphatically  in  the  inspired  word.  He  points  out 
to  them  the  fearful  consequences  of  transgres- 
sion. He  opens  heaven  before  them  and  invites 
them  to  enter.  He  promises  them  forgiveness 
for  their  past  transgressions.  He  entreats  them 
in  love  to  be  saved.  But  they  utterly  dis- 
regard every  warning  and  solicitation.  They 
choose  the  path  of  sin;  they  go  voluntarily  to 
their  own  place.  Through  the  maintenance  of 
God's  righteous  laws,  through  the  laws  of  their 
own  being,  they  suffer.  To  maintain  those 
laws  will  manifestly  be  the  highest,  broadest 
benevolence,  when  we  take  into  our  view  the 
whole  universe  and  all  of  God's  creatures.  If 
God  should  not  maintain  his  own  laws,  then 
there  would  be  an  end  of  righteousness,  and  the 
whole  universe  would  become  one  vast  hell. 

Nor  is  there  any  greater  difficulty  in  recon- 
ciling future  and  eternal  punishment  with  the 
benevolence  of  God,  than  in  reconciling  the  suf- 
ferings of  this  present  life  with  his  benevolence. 
And  men  are  usually  quite  ready  to  admit  that 
the    sufferings    of    wicked    men    here    are    just. 

[  121  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

Men  sin,  and  so  men  suffer.  When  wicked  men 
go  to  their  own  place,  they  will  continue  to  sin; 
hence  they  will  justly  continue  to  suffer.  If  they 
voluntarily  continue  to  sin  forever,  they  will 
justly  and  reasonably  suffer  forever. 

But  are  men  tormented  eternally  in  literal 
flames,  in  a  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone?  We  do 
not  so  understand  the  Scriptures.  Heaven  is 
set  before  us  by  material  imagery;  it  is  our 
Father's  house  in  which  are  many  mansions. 
It  is  a  city  of  precious  stones,  with  solid  gates 
of  pearl,  and  streets  of  gold.  All  the  most  pre- 
cious things  of  the  earth  are  gathered  together, 
and  wrought  into  a  resplendent  city,  in  order  to 
give  us  some  faint  notion  of  the  ineffable 
blessedness  and  joy  of  the  redeemed.  So  on 
the  other  hand  we  have  hell.  It  is  outer  dark- 
ness, tormenting  flame,  unquenchable  fire,  a 
worm  that  dies  not,  a  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone ; 
the  most  fearful  things  are  seized  upon  to 
represent  the  suffering  and  woe  of  the  lost. 
As  men  in  this  life  suffer  inflictions  from  with- 
out, we  need  not  affirm  that  no  such  inflictions 
are  meted  out  to  the  lost  who  go  to  their  own 
place;  but  the  agonies  of  hell  must  be  pre- 
eminently within  the  soul.  If  this  removes 
from  the  idea  of  hell  much  of  its  grossness,  it 
by  no  means  robs  hell  of  its  horror.  The  most 
exquisite  agony  that  men  suffer  now  is  within 
the  soul.  A  man  might  well  prefer  the  pain 
arising  from  thrusting  his  hand  into  the  flame, 
to  the  agony  of  remorse.    The  never-dying  worm 

[122] 


Eternal  Punishment 

may  be  never-ending  remorse.  A  material,  lit- 
eral hell,  to  any  reflecting  mind,  is  far  less  fear- 
ful than  one  whose  fires  are  kindled  within  the 
spirit  here  on  earth,  and  being  evermore  fed  by 
sin,  burn  on  eternally. 

If  it  be  said  that  this  is  a  dreadful  punish- 
ment, we  answer  that  sin,  which  evokes  it,  is  a 
dreadful  evil.  Sin  has  brought  upon  men  all 
the  ills  under  which  they  groan.  Sin  evokes 
God's  wrath;  sin  swept  away  the  race  by  flood, 
and  burned  up  the  cities  of  the  plain  by  fire ;  sin 
caused  Christ  to  sweat  great  drops  of  blood 
in  Gethsemane,  and  overwhelmed  Him  with  the 
agonies  of  the  cross.  And  it  is  a  false  and  su- 
perficial view  of  sin,  which  leads  many  not  only 
to  reject  the  doctrines  of  the  cross,  but  also  the 
scriptural  doctrine  of  the  future  punishment  of 
the  wicked. 

But  the  larger  part  of  the  race  will  be  saved 
through  Christ.  All,  both  in  heathen  and  Chris- 
tian lands,  who  die  before  they  come  to  the 
years  of  understanding  are  redeemed.  More 
than  half  of  all  the  generations  of  men  have 
died  in  infancy.  We  must  add  to  these  the  mil- 
lions who  have  believed  in  Christ.  Then  the 
Bible  assures  us  that  the  day  will  come  when 
''The  earth  shall  be  full  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
Lord  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea.''  It  will  not 
then  be  necessary  for  one  to  say  to  his  neigh- 
bor, ''Know  ye  the  Lord,  for  all  shall  know 
him,  from  the  least  unto  the  greatest."  Then 
all,  or  nearly  all,  the  generations  of  men  shall, 

[123] 


Science  and  Prayer 

in  unbroken  phalanxes,  enter  into  heaven.  So 
that  a  great  man  has  said — ^we  give  his  thought, 
not  his  words — that,  when  the  history  of  re- 
demption shall  have  been  completed,  the  num- 
ber of  the  lost,  compared  with  the  innumerable 
throng  of  the  redeemed,  will  be  like  those  within 
the  jails  of  any  well-ordered  community  com- 
pared with  the  entire  population  without.  It  is 
thus  that  the  Scriptures  fill  us  with  hope  concern- 
ing the  redemption  of  the  vast  majority  of  man- 
kind that  have  lived,  and  shall  live  on  this  earth. 


[124] 


PREMILLENARIANISM 


PREMILLENAKIANISM 

All  true  believers  confidently  expect  that  at 
some  future  period  the  nations  of  the  earth  will  be 
converted  to  Christ.  But,  as  to  the  time  when 
this  shall  be  accomplished,  and  the  means  by 
which  the  grand  result  is  to  be  secured,  men 
widely  differ.  Probably  the  vast  majority  of  the 
church  expect  its  achievement  during  the  present 
dispensation  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  but 
not  a  few  teach  with  unusual  positiveness,  not  to 
say  dogmatism,  that  we  are  not  to  anticipate  this 
glorious  event  before  another  dispensation  has 
been  ushered  in,  for  which  the  present  is  simply 
preparatory.  They  call  that  anticipated  period 
the  Millennium.  During  the  present  era,  they  ef- 
firm,  that  the  world  is  continually  to  increase  in 
wickedness  until  it  is  ripe  for  judgment ;  that  the 
Jews  now  scattered  over  the  world  are  to  return 
to  Judea  and  rebuild  Jerusalem  and  its  temple; 
then  Christ  is  to  come  the  second  time  and  take 
up  his  abode  at  Jerusalem.  The  holy  dead  are  to 
be  raised  with  glorified  bodies,  while  living  believ- 
ers are  to  be  clothed  simply  with  immortal  bodies ; 
the  anti-Christian  powers  are  to  be  destroyed  and 
Satan  is  to  be  bound.  This  earth  is  to  be  fitted  up 
for  the  everlasting  home  of  the  redeemed.  The 
Spirit  is  to  be  poured  out  as  never  before,  and 

[127] 


Science  and  Prayer 

the  world  converted  to  Christ.  Prophecies  like 
Isaiah  2,  2-3*  are  to  be  literally  interpreted. 
Jerusalem  and  mount  Zion  are  to  be  exalted,  be- 
cause Christ  personally  dwells  in  the  one,  and  on 
the  other.  All  nations  are  to  hasten  thither  to  be- 
hold and  acknowledge  him  as  their  King. 

We  have  purposely  kept  back  in  this  brief  state- 
ment some  of  the  grosser  features  of  this  theory, 
lest  it  might  be  supposed  that  we  had  caricatured 
it.  It  should  also  be  said  that  the  literalists  whose 
views  we  have  endeavored  to  present,  do  not  agree 
with  one  another  in  minor  details;  some  things 
that  are  received  by  one  are  rejected  by  another; 
but  they  generally  agree,  that  when  the  prophets 
speak  of  the  increase  and  exaltation  of  Jerusalem, 
they  mean  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  and  not  some- 
thing which  it  represents,  and  that  the  peoples  of 
the  globe  will  not  be  converted  during  the  present 
dispensation. 

During  the  past  few  years  so  much  zeal  has 
been  expended  in  promulgating  these  views 
through  the  pulpit  and  the  press,  that  it  has  be- 
come necessary  in  expounding  the  Scriptures,  to 
state  and  refute  them.  We  are  also  urged  to 
such  a  course  by  the  fact  that  many  of  those  who 
adopt  them  no  longer  believe  that  the  world  is  to 

*  2.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days  that  the  mountain 
of  the  Lord 's  house  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the  moun- 
tains, and  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills;  and  all  nations  shall 
flow  unto  it. 

3.  And  many  people  shall  go  and  say,  Come  ye,  and  let  us  go 
up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  to  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob ; 
and  he  will  teach  us  of  his  ways,  and  we  will  walk  in  his  paths: 
for  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord 
from  Jerusalem. 

[  128  ] 


Premillenarianism 

be  subjugated  to  Jesus  Christ  by  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel.  In  some  instances  they  openly  ex- 
press their  contempt  for  the  eiforts  now  being 
put  forth  to  disciple  heathen  nations — believing 
all  such  efforts  to  be  futile. 

Let  us  then  observe,  first,  that  Jerusalem,  mount 
Zion  and  the  Lord's  house,  in  the  typical  passage 
above  referred  to,  represent  the  church  of  Christ. 
The  language  of  the  prophecies  positively  forbids 
their  literal  interpretation.  Things  are  affirmed 
of  Jerusalem,  mount  Zion  and  the  Lord's  house 
which  could  not  be  naturally  predicated  of  any 
literal  city,  mountain,  or  temple.  Perhaps  not 
even  the  literalist  would  affirm  that  what  Isaiah 
and  Micah  both  predict  concerning  mount  Moriah 
is  actually  to  take  place ;  that  it  is  to  be  really 
pushed  upward  from  the  crust  of  the  earth,  till  it 
becomes  the  head  of  the  mountains,  or  until  it 
towers  above  all  the  mountains  of  the  earth.  But, 
if  this  part  of  the  prophecy  is  ideal,  why  not  the 
rest?  Grant  that  it  is  ideal,  while  the  rest  is  lit- 
eral, then  all  nations,  like  a  mighty  river,  are  to 
flow  into  Jerusalem,  in  Palestine,  which  is  a  phys- 
ical impossibility.  Look  also  at  a  cognate  pas- 
sage, at  the  close  of  Zechariah's  prophecy,  14: 
3-5,  8-11,  16-19.  If  this  is  to  be  literally  inter- 
preted, then,  the  mount  of  Olives  is  to  be  cleft 
asunder ;  two  veritable  rivers  are  to  flow  in  oppo- 
site directions  from  Jerusalem;  mount  Moriah  is 
not  only  to  be  literally  lifted  up,  but  all  other 
mountains  of  the  earth  are  to  sink  down  into 
plains,  and,  under  severe  penalties,  all  nations 

[  129  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

are  to  offer  bloody  sacrifices  in  Jerusalem.  Such 
an  interpretation  would  be  monstrous,  reinstating 
the  bloody  ritual  that  Christ  abolished;  yet  it 
seems  to  be  demanded  by  the  theory  of  the 
literalist. 

But  we  notice  again,  that  not  only  the  language 
of  these  prophecies,  but  also  the  teachings  of  the 
New  Testament  set  aside  such  an  interpretation. 
If  inspired  apostles  plainly  speak  contrary  to 
these  literalists,  there  is  an  end  of  controversy. 
If  we  understand  them,  and  their  utterances  seem 
to  be  remarkably  clear,  they  assume  as  a  settled 
fact,  that  Jerusalem,  mount  Zion  and  the  house  of 
God  are  representative  symbols  of  the  church; 
though  a  noted  writer  of  the  present  day  declares 
that  ^  ^  they  are  not  anywhere  in  the  sacred  volume 
declared  to  stand  for  it. ' '  But  it  may  be,  that  the 
beasts  and  images  of  Daniel  and  the  trumpets  of 
the  Apocalypse  so  engrossed  his  attention,  that 
he  overlooked  the  simpler,  clearer  declarations  of 
Paul  and  James.  The  former,  writing  to  the 
Galatians,  and  evidently  having  no  fear  of  being 
misunderstood  even  by  those  unsophisticated  Gen- 
tile believers,  speaks  of  Jerusalem  which  is  above, 
that  was  free  from  the  bondage  of  the  law  to 
which  Jerusalem  then  existing  was  subject,  and 
also  declares  her  to  be  the  mother  of  us  all.  Is 
not  this  the  church  of  Christ,  in  which  the  divine 
Spirit  dwells,  and  that  brings  forth  children  be- 
gotten from  above  by  the  Spirit?  In  entire  har- 
mony with  this  exposition,  the  apostle  at  the  close 
of  his  epistle,  invokes  mercy  on  the  Israel  of 
God. 

[130] 


Premillenarianism 

The  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  writ- 
ing to  Jewish  converts,  who,  under  the  pressure 
of  persecution,  were  tempted  to  forsake  their  pro- 
fession for  their  former  Judaism,  assured  them, 
that  while  the  former  dispensation  had  its  Sinai 
with  its  flame,  and  blackness,  and  darkness,  and 
tempest,  and  the  sound  of  a  trumpet,  and  the  voice 
of  words ;  the  present  dispensation  has  its  mount 
Zion,  and  the  city  of  the  living  God,  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem,  and  the  general  assembly  and  church 
of  the  first-born,  which  are  written  in  heaven,  and 
he  distinctly  declared,  that  to  this  mount  they  had 
already  come.  Nor  ought  we  to  overlook  the  ob- 
vious reference  of  Paul  to  the  temple,  when  he 
wrote  to  his  brethren  of  Ephesus  that  they  were 
*^  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief 
corner-stone,  in  whom  all  the  building  fitly  framed 
together,  groweth  unto  an  holy  temple  in  the 
Lord ;  in  whom  ye  also  are  builded  together  for  an 
habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit. '*  He  in- 
structed the  Corinthians,  also,  that  they  were  the 
temple  of  the  living  God,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
dwelt  in  them.  Peter  is  still  more  specific.  He 
calls  believers  living  stones,  of  which  is  built  up  a 
spiritual  house,  and  this  house  is  an  holy  priest- 
hood, that  offers  up  spiritual  sacrifices  which  are 
acceptable  to  God,  through  Jesus  Christ.  This 
language  is  too  clearly  linked  with  the  temple  of 
the  Old  Testament,  with  its  indwelling  Shekinah, 
to  be  mistaken.  It  assumes  that  the  temple  with 
its  Shekinah  is  the  symbol  of  believers  as  a  body ; 

[131] 


Science  and  Prayer 

it  assumes  this  as  if  it  were  a  most  common  and 
familiar  thought  of  the  apostolic  church ;  and  this 
is  evidence,  vastly  stronger  than  if  the  New  Tes- 
tament had  declared  it  in  the  most  formal,  explicit 
manner. 

But  James  is  not  a  whit  behind  the  very  chief 
of  the  apostles  in  his  testimony  on  this  point. 
When  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  with  its  elders,  as- 
sembled to  confer  with  the  apostles  as  to  whether 
circumcision  should  be  required  of  the  Gentile 
converts  of  Antioch,  James  arose  and  addressed 
the  assembly.  He  referred  to  a  speech  of 
Peter's;  —  ** Simeon, '^  said  he,  **hath  declared 
how  God,  at  the  first,  did  visit  the  Gentiles,  to  take 
out  of  them  a  people  for  his  name,  and  to  this 
agree  the  words  of  the  prophets.''  He  uses  the 
plural,  as  though  several  of  the  prophets  had 
spoken  in  like  manner;  yet  quotes  only  one,  as  a 
specimen  of  the  whole.  ^*  After  this  I  will  return 
and  will  build  again,  or  rebuild  the  tabernacle  or 
house  of  David,  which  is  fallen  down ;  and  I  will 
build  again  the  ruins  thereof,  and  I  will  set  it 
up ;  that  the  residue  of  men,  others  than  the  Jews, 
might  seek  after  the  Lord,  and  all  the  Gentiles 
upon  whom  my  name  is  called,  saith  the  Lord, 
who  doeth  all  these  things."  Acts  15:16-17. 
James  not  only  understood  Amos'  words  as  ful- 
filled under  the  present  dispensation,  but  also 
that  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  was  the  re- 
building of  David's  house,  which  began  with 
Christ  and  his  disciples.  Both  converted  Jews 
and   Gentiles   were  the  material   of  which   this 

[132] 


L 


Premillenarianism 

house  was  composed.  Its  grandeur  will  culminate 
when  all  peoples  are  gathered  into  it.  Both  Amos 
and  James,  then — the  former  under  the  old,  the 
latter  under  the  new,  dispensation — meant  by 
the  tabernacle,  or  house  of  David,  the  church  of 
Christ.  But  the  Premillenarians  say  that  it 
never  means  that.  There  is  evidently  a  mistake 
somewhere. 

It  is  equally  clear,  also,  from  the  spirituality  of 
the  present  dispensation,  that  these  prophecies 
will  not  admit  of  a  literal  interpretation.  There 
has  been  a  progress  during  the  history  of  redemp- 
tion, from  that  which  was  gross  and  sensuous,  to 
that  which  is  more  spiritual.  We  see  this  when 
we  compare  the  different  epochs  of  miracles. 
Those,  in  the  time  of  Moses,  were  mainly  retribu- 
tive, and  wrought  in  the  material  and  animal  crea- 
tions. In  the  day  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  a  major- 
ity of  miracles  were  beneficent,  and  a  greater  num- 
ber were  wrought  in  the  persons  of  men,  than  in 
the  time  of  Israel's  lawgiver;  but  Christ's  mira- 
cles were  all  beneficent,  except,  perhaps,  in  a  sin- 
gle instance,  the  withering  of  the  fig-tree ;  most  of 
them  were  miracles  of  healing;  many  of  them 
were  double,  the  outward  and  physical  healing 
being  only  the  symbol  of  the  inward  and  spiritual. 
When  he  said  to  the  leper,  ^  ^  Be  thou  clean, ' '  the 
leprosy  of  both  body  and  soul  was  removed ;  when 
he  opened  men's  physical  eyes,  he  sometimes  also 
granted  spiritual  sight.  But  he  taught  his  dis- 
ciples that  they  should  work  mightier  miracles 
than  he  did — ^miracles  wholly  removed  from  the 

[  133  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

physical  world,  because  he  went  to  the  Father. 
The  Spirit  being  poured  out  as  the  result  of  his 
exaltation,  they,  by  the  preaching  of  the  Word, 
should  be  instrumental  in  repeating  throughout 
the  world  and  in  all  ages,  that  chief  of  miracles — 
the  renewal  of  the  carnal  heart.  Thus,  that 
which  began  in  wrath  in  the  material  world,  cul- 
minated in  mercy  within  the  domain  of  man's 
spirit. 

We  see  progress  of  the  same  kind  in  worship. 
Under  the  old  dispensation,  God  visibly  revealed 
himself  to  men  in  a  cloud  or  pillar  of  fire,  or  in  the 
Shekinah  over  the  mercy-seat.  He  commanded 
his  worshippers  to  approach  him  with  bloody 
sacrifices,  to  burn  portions  of  them  and  to  feast 
on  the  remainder.  Blood  was  to  be  sprinkled  on 
the  altar  or  to  be  poured  over  its  sides.  The 
outer  court  of  the  tabernacle  or  temple  must  have 
presented  a  scene  as  repulsive  as  a  slaughter- 
house. 

But  when  Christ  came,  these  grosser  forms  of 
worship  passed  away.  Sacrifices  were  no  longer 
needed  since  their  antitype  had  put  away  sin  by 
the  sacrifice  of  himself.  Jehovah  no  longer  dwelt 
within  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  but  took  up  his 
abode  in  every  contrite  heart.  Worship  still  has 
its  forms,  but  when  they  are  in  harmony  with  the 
spirit  of  the  New  Testament,  they  are  outwardly 
simple  and  unimposing.  No  oblation  is  required 
except  obedience  and  praise.  The  true  worship- 
per worships  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  How  vast 
the  progress  towards  the  spiritual  since  the  day 

[134] 


Premillenarianism 

when  Jehovah  dwelt  in  curtains  on  the  brow  of 
Moriah,  and  Jewish  altars  streamed  with  blood 
and  smoked  with  consuming  flesh !  If  now  we  are 
to  interpret  the  prophecies  concerning  Jerusalem 
and  mount  Zion  literally,  men  are  destined  to 
leave  the  spiritual,  to  which  we  have  attained, 
and  go  back  to  the  material  and  sensuous.  Christ, 
who  is  now  exalted  and  glorified,  is  to  dwell  once 
more  on  Moriah ;  worship  is  to  be  localized.  The 
nations  are  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  gaze  on  the 
form  of  their  King.  Instead  of  advancing,  the 
world  is  to  go  back  to  Judaism.  If  we  follow 
the  interpretation  of  the  Premillenarians  there 
seems  to  be  no  escape  from  this  conclusion. 

If  it  is  asked,  why  such  imagery  was  employed 
by  the  prophets  to  express  the  fact  of  the  increase 
of  the  church,  a  tyro  in  scriptural  knowledge 
might  answer, — It  was  the  only  language  that  a 
Jew  could  understand.  Jerusalem  with  its  tem- 
ple was  the  central  point  of  his  theocracy.  The 
law  went  forth  from  Jehovah  who  dwelt  there. 
From  the  Holy  of  Holies  proceeded  the  power 
that  overthrew  the  enemies  of  his  nation.  To 
represent  the  mount  around  which  the  hopes  of 
Israel  clustered,  as  exalted  above  all  others,  at 
least  expressed  to  the  Jew,  the  absolute  suprem- 
acy of  his  people ;  to  represent  all  nations  as  flow- 
ing unto  it,  expressed  their  willing  subjection  to 
Jehovah,  his  creator  and  lawgiver,  whose  pres- 
ence was  all  that  made  the  temple  truly  glorious. 
If  such  imagery  did  not  reveal  to  his  mind  the 
full  import  of  the  prophetic  message,  then  nothing 

[135] 


Science  and  Prayer 

could  have  revealed  it.  The  difficulty  was  not, 
however,  in  the  language  employed,  but  in  his 
spiritual  perception,  and  the  position  which  he 
occupied  in  reference  to  the  fulfillment  of  the 
prophecy,  which  lay  in  the  distant  future.  The 
language  of  Isaiah,  already  quoted,  carries  us 
beyond  the  period  of  Israel's  exclusiveness, — be- 
yond the  narrow  notions  of  Jesus 's  disciples  be- 
fore the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost, — 
beyond  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  its  tem- 
ple. Guided  by  inspired  apostles,  we  find  that 
the  prophet  by  this  Jewish  imagery,  has  present- 
ed to  us  Christ's  church  as  she  will  appear 
some  day  still  in  the  future.  She  is  to  be  spir- 
itually exalted.  She  will  become  so  conspicu- 
ous as  to  attract  the  attention  of  men  in  every 
quarter  of  the  globe,  and  all  nations  like  the 
waters  of  a  broad,  deep  river  shall  flow  unto 
her. 

We  come  now  to  notice,  in  the  second  place,  that 
the  exaltation  of  the  church  and  the  conversion  of 
the  nations  of  the  earth,  will  take  place  during  the 
present  dispensation.  First  Isaiah  says,  **It 
shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days.''  That  the 
same  thing  is  uniformly  meant  in  the  Scriptures, 
by  the  last  days,  no  careful  interpreter  will  af- 
firm ;  yet,  that  it  generally  designates  the  present 
dispensation  is  unquestionably  true.  When  the 
dying  Jacob  blessed  his  sons,  he  pointed  out  that 
which  should  befall  them  in  the  last  days.  He 
seems  to  have  used  the  words  indefinitely,  mean- 
ing by  them  simply  hereafter ;  yet  in  the  blessing 

[136] 


Premillenarianism 

pronounced  on  Judah,  the  words  are  seen  to  in- 
clude the  present  era;  for  the  patriarch  spoke  of 
Shilohunto  whom  the  gathering  of  the  people 
should  be.  Balaam  in  his  prophecy,  Num.  24: 
14-19,  clearly  designates  the  present  era.  He  saw 
a  star  rise  out  of  Jacob  and  to  it  dominion  was 
given.  Peter,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  quoting 
the  substance  of  a  prophecy  of  Joel,  spoke  of  the 
present  period  as  the  last  days.  ^'It  shall  come 
to  pass  in  the  last  days  that  I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit  on  all  flesh. '^  (Joel  2:28-32,  Acts  2:17.) 
The  apostle  at  least,  taught  that  the  prophecy 
then  began  to  be  fulfilled.  The  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  says,  that  God  hath 
spoken  unto  us  in  these  last  days  by  his  son;  the 
time  referred  to  in  these  words  is  too  obvious 
for  comment.  If  the  phrase  ever  has  any  other 
meaning  in  the  Scriptures,  it  is  when  there  is  no 
comparison,  in  the  passage  where  it  occurs,  be- 
tween the  past  and  present  dispensations.  It 
then  refers,  if  found  in  the  New  Testament,  to  the 
closing  season  of  the  present  era,  as  when  James 
says,  ''Ye  have  heaped  treasure  together  for  the 
last  days.''  There  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
that  the  words  ever  designated  a  period  beyond 
the  present.  In  the  Old  Testament  they  almost 
uniformly  refer  to  the  present  dispensation  as  a 
whole.  It  then  shall  come  to  pass,  according  to 
Isaiah,  under  the  present  dispensation  of  the 
Spirit,  that  all  nations  shall  press  into  the  church 
of  Christ. 

That  the  world  will  be  converted  through  the 

[137] 


Science  and  Prayer 

preaching  of  the  Gospel,  during  the  present  era, 
is  taught  also,  by  the  general  tenor  of  those  proph- 
ecies, which  portray  the  increase  of  the  church. 
That  there  are  some  passages  which  it  is  difficult 
to  harmonize  with  this  view,  perhaps  all  will  ad- 
mit, but  the  great  mass  of  scripture  which  refers 
to  this  subject  gives  a  uniform  testimony,  which 
impresses  ordinary  Bible  readers  with  like  ideas. 
That  men  generally  may  be  mistaken  is  admitted, 
but  the  great  body  of  intelligent  and  careful  scrip- 
ture readers  usually  have  correct  notions  of  what 
the  Bible  teaches  concerning  a  topic  like  this,  in 
reference  to  which  the  testimony  is  so  abundant. 
The  probability  is  strong  that  they  do  not  err. 
When  such  men  read  a  prophecy  (Isa.  9)  which 
declares  that  a  child  is  born  unto  us,  on  whose 
shoulder  rests  the  divine  government,  which  being 
administered  by  him  in  justice,  shall  indefinitely 
increase — that  his  name  is  Wonderful,  Counsel- 
lor, Mighty  God,  Everlasting  Father,  Prince  of 
Peace,  and  that  his  administration  and  the  prom- 
ised increase  cannot  fail  because  the  Lord  of 
Hosts  is  filled  with  zeal  to  secure  the  ultimate  tri- 
umph, they  naturally  conclude,  since  there  is  not 
in  the  passage  the  slightest  indication  to  the 
contrary,  that  the  birth  of  the  King  and  the 
increase  of  his  government  belong  to  the  same 
dispensation. 

They  read  of  the  same  Eedeemer,  coming  forth 
as  a  branch  from  the  roots  of  Jesse.  (Isa.  11.) 
The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  rest  upon  him.  They 
perceive  this  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  words  of 

[138] 


Premillenarianism 

his  forerunner,  who  declared  that  the  Spirit  was 
given  to  him  without  measure.  ( Jno.  3 :  34.)  He 
overcomes  his  foes,  and  the  final  result  is,  that 
universal  peace  reigns  on  the  earth,  which  is  ^'fuU 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  as  the  waters  cover 
the  sea.'*  Plain  readers,  possessing  ordinary 
common  sense,  are  led  to  suppose  that,  as  the 
branch  shooting  out  of  Jacob's  roots,  is  the  be- 
ginning of  the  present  dispensation,  the  earth 
filled  with  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  will  be  its 
close.  And  when  they  find  Paul  quoting  from 
the  same  prophecy  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Eomans, 
and  showing  the  beginning  of  its  fulfillment  in 
his  day,  they  are  confirmed  in  their  conclusion,  for 
they  perceive  that  he  knew  no  dispensation  after 
the  present  one,  in  which  the  nations  are  to  be 
converted. 

Christ  is  again  presented  to  them  as  the  leader 
of  the  people.  He  shall  call  and  Gentile  nations 
that  knew  him  not  shall  run  unto  him.  (Isa.  55.) 
However  incredible  this  may  appear  to  man,  the 
prophet  declares  it  to  be  possible  with  God,  for 
his  thoughts  are  not  as  our  thoughts,  and  the 
word  that  goes  forth  from  his  mouth  shall  not 
return  unto  him  void,  but  will  certainly  accom- 
plish his  purpose.  The  result  shall  be  great  joy 
and  peace  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth. 
Their  inward  joy  will  become  seemingly  an  out- 
ward reality,  so  that  the  mountains  and  the  hills 
shall  break  forth  into  singing  and  all  the  trees 
of  the  field  shall  clap  their  hands.  Yet,  in  this 
prophecy,  thirsting  men  are  invited  to  the  waters 

[139] 


Science  and  Prayer 

of  life.  The  unbelieving  are  warned  to  seek  tlie 
Lord  while  he  may  be  found,  and  on  condition  of 
obedience  are  assured  of  mercy  and  pardon. 
These  things  belong  to  the  present  dispensation; 
then  why  wrench  the  glorious  result  from  its  nat- 
ural connection  and  transfer  it  to  some  future 
dispensation?  That  is  what  a  common  reader 
cannot  understand. 

The  same  Jesus  who  is  represented  in  the  deep- 
est humiliation,  is  presented  almost  in  the  same 
breath  as  sprinkling,  purifying  many  nations. 
(Isa.  53.)  He  makes  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin 
and  the  necessary  result  is  at  once  depicted  by 
the  prophet.  He  sees  the  fruit  of  his  sufferings 
and  is  satisfied.  He  justifies  many  and,  victori- 
ous over  sin  and  Satan,  divides  the  spoil  snatched 
from  his  foes.  The  Father  says  to  Christ,  be- 
gotten by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  set 
on  the  Holy  Hill  of  Zion,  ^*Ask  of  me,  and  I  will 
give  thee  the  heathen  for  thine  inheritance  and 
the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  thy  posses- 
sion.** (Ps.  2.)  ^*He  shall  have  dominion  also 
from  sea  to  sea  and  from  the  river  unto  the 
ends  of  the  earth.'*  (Ps.  72.)  ^^For  from  the 
rising  of  the  sun  even  to  the  going  down  of 
the  same,  my  name  shall  be  great  among  the 
Gentiles;  and  in  every  place  incense  shall  be  of- 
fered unto  my  name  and  a  pure  offering ;  for  my 
name  shall  be  great  among  the  heathen.**  (Mai. 
1.)  This  language  clearly  refers  to  the  present 
dispensation;  it  is  so  decisive  upon  any  fair  in- 
terpretation of  it,  that  if  any  man  declares  that 

[140] 


Premillenariamsm 

it  describes  a  period  after  the  general  resurrec- 
tion, he  is  bound  to  clear  his  assertion  of  every 
reasonable  doubt. 

The  New  Testament  is  not  so  abundant  in  its 
testimony  on  this  subject.  Its  writers  received 
the  Old  Testament  as  God's  word,  and  hence  there 
was  no  necessity  of  augmenting  evidence  already 
so  copious.  It  assumes  the  truth  for  which  we 
contend.  Its  testimony,  therefore,  to  a  consider- 
able extent,  is  incidental,  but  all  the  stronger  on 
that  account. 

"Would  not  any  one  naturally  infer  from  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  that  he  expected  the  conversion  of 
the  world  during  the  dispensation  that  he  inau- 
gurated! He  taught  his  disciples  to  pray,  ''Thy 
kingdom  come,  thy  will  be  done  in  earth,  as  it 
is  in  Heaven."  As  this  petition  is  intertwisted 
with  others  which  can  refer  only  to  the  present, 
and  as  Christ  taught  his  followers  to  expect  im- 
mediate answers  to  their  prayers,  saying,  ''Every 
one  that  asketh  receiveth,''  the  learner  could  not 
fail  to  understand  that  his  Lord  intended  to  teach 
that  in  answer  to  prayer,  the  kingdom  of  God 
would  come  during  the  present  era.  This  impres- 
sion would  be  deepened  by  Christ's  last  discourse 
before  his  crucifixion,  in  which  he  promised  the 
Spirit  to  convince  or  convict  the  world  of  sin,  and 
assured  his  disciples,  that  whatsoever  they  asked 
in  his  name,  should  be  granted  to  them. 

The  impression  made  by  his  prayer  is  strength- 
ened by  his  parables.  He  represented  the  humble 
beginning  of  his  kingdom  by  the  mustard  seed, 

[141] 


Science  and  Prayer 

whose  branches,  when  it  is  grown,  furnish  a  re- 
treat for  the  birds  of  the  air.  So  his  kingdom,  at 
the  beginning  apparently  insignificant,  despised 
by  men,  shall  in  its  maturity  furnish  grateful 
shelter  for  the  nations.  The  literalist  has  been 
troubled  with  this  parable,  and  has  gravely 
taught,  that  the  birds  in  the  branches  of  the  mus- 
tard tree,  were  unclean  birds,  representing  the 
corruptions  which  creep  into  the  church.  This  is 
a  case  of  such  rank,  special  pleading  in  interpre- 
tation, that  to  state  it  is  to  refute  it. 

Christ  also  represents  the  hidden  power  within 
his  kingdom,  which  causes  its  outward  growth, 
by  the  leaven  in  the  meal.  As  the  leaven  extends 
its  influence  from  particle  to  particle,  till  the 
whole  mass  is  permeated,  so  the  power  of  the 
Gospel  extends  from  heart  to  heart,  until  all  na- 
tions are  brought  under  its  sway.  Its  working 
may  not  always  be  apparent,  but  it  is  aggressive 
and  real.  The  kingdom  of  God  will  come,  yet 
not  by  observation.  But  to  avoid  the  manifest 
and  cogent  teaching  of  this  parable,  the  Premil- 
lenarians  tell  us  that  leaven  represents  corrup- 
tion. So  it  does  often,  yet  such  a  thought  is  in- 
admissible here.  When  the  leaven  of  the  Phar- 
isees is  mentioned,  it  is  the  symbol  of  hypocrisy. 
This,  Christ  carefully  states.  But  when  he  says, 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  like  leaven,  it  is  most 
unnatural  to  suppose  that,  without  any  explana- 
tion, he  represents  by  it  the  corruptions  of  the 
church.  The  only  point  of  comparison  is  between 
the  silent,  pervasive  power  of  the  leaven  and  that 
of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel. 

[142] 


Premillenarianism 

But  if  this  testimony  is  not  sufficient  to  con- 
vince the  most  incredulous,  there  remains  still 
stronger.  Jesus,  when  the  shadow  of  his  cross 
began  to  fall  upon  him,  said,  ''And  I,  if  I  be  lifted 
up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me.'* 
''This  he  said,'^  writes  John,  "signifying  what 
death  he  should  die.''  Perhaps  he  included 
in  the  words,  not  only  the  manner  of  his  death 
on  a  cross,  but  also  the  lifting  of  him  up 
through  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  before  all 
nations,  as  the  crucified  Eedeemer ;  as  Paul  wrote 
to  the  Galatians,  "Jesus  Christ  hath  been  evi- 
dently set  forth,  crucified  among  you.''  But 
whatever  breadth  of  meaning  may  be  legitimately 
found  in  the  words,  they  teach  that  Christ  by  his 
death  is  to  secure  the  allegiance  of  the  nations. 
The  declaration  is  most  sweeping  and  clear.  The 
thought  is  not  presented  in  symbol  or  poetry,  but 
in  the  plainest  prose.  It  sounds  as  though 
Christ,  already  coming  into  the  presence  of  his  in- 
scrutable woe,  condensed  into  one  utterance,  all 
the  declarations  of  the  old  prophets  concerning 
the  coming  glory  of  his  reign.  His  words  can 
only  refer  to  this  dispensation,  of  which  he  was 
the  bright  and  morning  star.  He  does  not  say, 
when  I  come  the  second  time  to  judge  the  world, 
but,  if  I  be  lifted  up  on  the  cross,  I  will  draw  all 
men  unto  me.  From  the  very  point  of  my  sup- 
posed defeat,  shall  proceed  my  complete,  my  uni- 
versal triumph. 

In  suggestive  harmony  with  these  words  pro- 
nounced before  his  crucifixion,  after  his  resurrec- 

[143] 


Science  and  Prayer 

tion,  he  said  to  more  than  five  hundred  disciples, 
assembled  in  Galilee,  **Go  ye  and  make  disciples 
of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things,  what- 
soever I  commanded  you.  And  lo,  I  am  with  you 
always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.''  Did 
Jesus  awaken  false  expectations  in  his  followers! 
Did  he  send  his  disciples  on  a  bootless  errand! 
Did  he  straightly  command  them  to  disciple  all 
nations  when  he  knew  that  by  the  use  of  the 
means  put  into  their  hands  no  such  result  was 
to  be  reached!  Perish  the  thought!  This  last 
command  of  Jesus  blazes  like  a  sun  amid  his 
utterances,  revealing  in  the  clearest  light,  what 
he  expected  would  be  achieved  by  the  preaching 
of  the  truth.  Within  its  light  all  Premillenarian 
interpretations  of  unfulfilled  prophecy,  of  the 
meaning  of  images,  horns,  trumpets  and  beasts, 
are  quenched  like  tapers  amid  the  dazzling  splen- 
dor of  noonday. 

As  Christ  taught,  so  taught  the  apostles,  whom 
he  inspired.  A  passage  in  the  prophecy  of  Joel 
predicts  a  vast  increase  of  the  Church.  A  noted 
writer  of  our  day  says,  that  it  is  to  be  fulfilled 
after  the  second  advent  of  Christ.  Peter  at  Pen- 
tecost said,  that  it  was  fulfilled  then.  Whom 
shall  we  follow!  An  inspired  apostle,  or  an  unin- 
spired, self-sufficient  man!  When  the  Jews  at 
Antioch,  in  Pisidia,  rejected  PauPs  message,  he 
said,  *^Lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles,  for  so  hath  the 
Lord  commanded  us,  saying,  I  have  set  thee  to  be 

[144] 


Premillenarianism 

a  light  of  the  Gentiles,  that  thou  shouldest  be  for 
salvation  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth/'     (Isa.  49: 
6,  Acts  13:  47.)     The  apostle  quotes  from  a  pas- 
sage of  Isaiah,  which  represents  kings  and  princes 
worshipping  the  Lord,  and  men  from  the  most 
distant  parts  of  the  earth  flocking  into  the  church. 
No  impartial  reader  could  fail  to   see   that  Paul 
supposed  that  the   prophecy  was  already  begin- 
ning to  be  fulfilled,  and  that  it  referred  only  to  the 
present  era.      Is  it  not  safe  to  follow  Paul?      In 
the  eleventh  of  Eomans,  he   declares  that  Israel 
will  continue  in  her  present  blindness  only  ''Until 
the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  comes  in,''  and  then 
the  Jews  shall  receive  the  Gospel.      So  all  Israel 
shall  be  saved.     He  represents  that  the  converted 
Jews  will  become  most  important  agents  in  saving 
the  Gentile  world.    There  is  not  a  hint  dropped  by 
him  that  this  is  to  take  place  under  some  future 
dispensation.     His  entire  language  only  finds  a 
natural  explanation  in  referring  it  to  the  present 
era.     It  cannot,  without  great  violence,  have  any 
other  reference.     It  is  clear  that  he  knew  nothing 
of  the  views  to  which  we  object.     How  admirably 
his  prophecy  harmonizes  with  the  present  condi- 
tion of  the  Jews,  scattered  throughout  all  nations. 
Why  have  they  not   amalgamated  with  the   na- 
tions ?     Has  God  kept  them  distinct  in  order  to 
lead  them  back  to  Judea,  where  they  may  build 
their  temple  and  attempt  to  restore  an  abolished 
ritual?     Is  it  not  a  grander  thought,   and  one 
more  in  consonance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel, 
to   say,  with  Paul,  that  they  are  finally  to  be 

[145] 


Science  and  Prayer 

brought  into  the  church  of  Christ,  and  then,  in 
every  nation,  whither  they  have  been  scattered, 
and  where  God  has  kept  them  distinct,  they  are 
to  proclaim,  with  unwonted  zeal,  the  Messiah, 
whom  they  have  so  long  rejected.  This  they 
could  do,  without  the  labor  of  learning  foreign 
languages,  for,  as  a  people,  they  have  all  lan- 
guages. They  have  amassed,  with  a  cunning  and 
intrigue,  which  seems  to  have  flowed  down  to  them 
from  their  father  Jacob,  vast  wealth.  But  their 
own  scriptures  declare  that  the  gold  and  silver 
are  the  Lord's,  and,  at  last,  they  will  be  poured 
into  his  treasury.  This  predicted  ministry  will 
be  to  the  Gentiles,  says  Paul,  life  from  the  dead. 

With  this  agrees  the  Revelation.  John,  in  his 
vision,  heard  voices  in  Heaven,  before  the  scene 
of  the  Judgment  was  unveiled,  saying,  *^The 
kingdom  of  the  world  is  become  the  kingdom  of 
our  Lord,  and  of  his  Christ ;  and  he  shall  reign 
forever  and  ever.''     (Rev.  11:  15.) 

This  direct  testimony  of  Scripture  is  confirmed 
by  the  fact  that  the  church  is  presented  to  us  in 
the  prophecies  as  a  development.  Christ  is  its 
central  figure  and  around  him  as  Prophet,  and 
Priest,  and  King,  his  followers  are  gathered.  He 
is  first  despised,  then  greatly  honored.  His  sub- 
jects are  few  at  the  beginning,  at  last  all  nations 
bow  to  his  sceptre. 

In  these  prophetic  pictures  of  his  unfolding 
kingdom,  there  is  no  intimation  that  his  universal 
sway  is  separated  from  the  beginning  of  his  work 
by  any  great  convulsion  like  that  which  must  at- 

[146] 


Premillenarianism 

tend  his  second  coming.  Its  development  seems 
to  be  as  uninterrupted  as  the  unfolding  of  a  bud 
into  the  flower  and  the  fruit.  Yet  these  same 
prophecies  do  distinctly  announce  the  beginning 
of  the  present  dispensation.  They  disclose  the 
birth  and  death  of  Christ,  proclaim  his  fore-run- 
ner, and  the  abolition  of  the  rites  of  the  first  dis- 
pensation. But  the  ushering  in  of  the  present 
era  was  not  attended  with  such  startling  phenom- 
ena, as  are  to  attend  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 
Even  the  shepherds  around  Bethlehem  would  not 
have  known  that  Christ  was  born,  if  the  angels 
had  not  announced  it  to  them.  But  when  Christ 
comes  for  judgment,  it  will  be  with  ten  thousand 
of  angels  and  with  the  sound  of  a  trumpet,  and 
every  eye  shall  see  him.  If  then  the  conversion 
of  all  nations,  which  these  prophecies  announce, 
is  to  succeed  the  second  coming,  would  not  that 
event  have  been  pointed  out?  If  the  birth  of 
Christ  was  foretold  by  Israel's  prophets,  would 
not  his  second  coming  have  been  announced, 
which,  according  to  the  Premillenarians,  is  alone 
to  secure  that  for  which  he  laid  down  his  life? 

Moreover,  we  must  not  fail  to  notice,  that  this 
predicted  increase  of  the  church  has  in  part  taken 
place.  Notwithstanding  the  church  has  con- 
tended with  manifold  corruptions  within  her  own 
bosom,  and  has  breasted  a  storm  of  hurtling 
arrows  from  without  during  almost  every  step  of 
her  progress,  yet  Christ's  promise  has  proved 
true  in  the  past,  as  it  will  in  the  future,  that  the 
'Agates  of  Hell  shall  not  prevail  against  her.'' 

[147] 


Science  and  Prayer 

She  has  grappled  with  every  form  of  opposition, 
and  her  pathway  has  often  been  crimsoned  with 
the  blood  of  her  martyrs,  yet  she  is  mightier  to- 
day than  ever  before.  She  never  was  so  full  of 
hope — never  so  confident  of  success,  as  at  the 
present  hour.  If  these  prophecies  of  her  increase 
and  power  have  been  fulfilled  in  part,  shall  we  not 
receive  this  as  the  earnest  of  the  future,  as  the 
first  ripe  ears  of  her  universal  harvest! 

With  this  increase  of  numbers  and  expansion 
of  power,  there  has  been  also  a  development  of 
doctrine.  The  sacred  Canon  closed,  as  to  its  let- 
ter, with  the  Apocalypse.  To  it  no  one  is  to  add, 
from  it  no  one  is  to  subtract ;  but  he  has  read  the 
history  of  the  church  to  little  purpose,  who  has 
not  discovered  a  constant  unfolding  of  the  hidden 
meaning  of  scripture  so  that  the  written  word  has 
adjusted  itself  with  marvelous  facility  to  every 
new  phase  of  civilization.  The  doctrines  of  God's 
word  are  correlated  with  our  race.  Development 
in  the  one,  has  been  speedily  registered  in  the  life 
of  the  other.  Every  new  conception  or  phase  of 
doctrine  has  soon  been  reproduced  in  society.  So 
that  the  church  in  the  past,  through  the  unfolding 
energy  of  her  doctrines,  has  sooner  or  later  freed 
herself  from  accumulated  corruptions  to  enter 
with  new  and  greater  power  on  her  sublime  mis- 
sion of  saving  a  world.  The  reformation  of  the 
sixteenth  century  taught  the  world,  for  the  first 
time,  what  hidden  might  had  slumbered  in  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  The  reforma- 
tion of  1740  in  our  own  land,  sprung  up  amid 

[148] 


Premillenarianism 

churches  that  had  been  corrupted  by  an  unregen- 
erated  membership,  so  that  when  Whitefield 
preached  that  men  must  be  born  again,  he 
seemed  to  be  uttering  new  and  startling  truth  to 
the  gathering  multitudes,  and  the  church  was  then 
made  to  feel  as  never  before,  the  inherent  power 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth.  Is  this  develop- 
ment to  cease?  Has  doctrine  reached  the  limit  of 
its  power?  Will  it  from  this  time  fail  to  adjust 
itself  to  the  unfolding  exigencies  of  the  nations? 
Has  God's  truth,  like  a  frail  taper,  burned  itself 
out,  so  that  the  predicted  increase  of  the  church 
will  cease,  and  the  nations  wax  worse  and  worse, 
until  a  new  dispensation  has  been  inaugurated? 
The  notion  is  monstrous!  This  development  is 
God 's  onward  march  to  the  final  redemption  of  all 
nations. 

It  is  however  objected,  that  the  Scriptures  teach 
that  in  the  last  days  of  the  present  dispensation, 
universal  corruption  will  prevail.  Though  the 
passages  usually  adduced  as  teaching  this  are  but 
few,  yet  our  time  will  not  permit  any  extended 
analysis  of  them,  and  if  we  were  able  to  present 
the  keenest  and  most  exhaustive  analysis,  it  might 
be  of  little  or  no  value,  since  some  of  the  passages 
are  unfulfilled  prophecies  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
baffle  the  most  penetrating  interpreter.  Every 
wise  expositor  in  such  a  case  will  regard  his  con- 
clusions as  somewhat  problematical;  yet  it  may 
not  be  amiss  to  hint  briefly  at  some  principles 
which  ought  to  guide  us  in  reference  to  the  pas- 
sages referred  to. 

[149] 


Science  and  Prayer 

1.  It  is  an  acknowledged  law  of  interpretation, 
and  also  the  dictate  of  good  sense,  that  the  few 
are  to  be  expounded  in  harmony  with  the  many. 
We  have  seen  that  a  very  large  majority  of  the 
passages  that  refer  to  the  conversion  of  the  world 
teach  that  it  is  to  take  place  during  the  present 
era.  If  a  few  do  not  seem  to  harmonize  with  such 
a  conclusion,  they  by  no  means  invalidate  it.  If 
we  cannot  interpret  them  in  harmony  with  the 
general  sweep  of  prophecy,  we  must  conclude 
that  we  do  not  yet  understand  them.  New  truths 
are  being  evolved  from  God's  word,  by  the  con- 
flicts and  experiences  of  God's  people,  and  by  the 
teachings  of  the  Spirit,  and  these  passages  may 
belong  to  those  things  which  we  know  not  now, 
but  shall  know  hereafter. 

2.  If  scriptural  testimony  seems  to  be  as  to 
quantity  about  equally  divided,  that  which  is  clear 
and  unmistakable  must  take  precedence  of  that 
which  is  enigmatical  and  doubtful.  Such  a  dec- 
laration as  that  of  Christ,  that  being  crucified 
he  will  draw  all  men  unto  him,  which  is  so  plain, 
that  the  wayfaring  man,  though  he  were  a  fool, 
could  not  err  concerning  it,  ought  to  have  vastly 
greater  weight  in  determining  what  is  to  take 
place  through  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  than 
the  prophecy  of  Paul  concerning  the  man  of  sin, 
that  no  one  yet  understands,  or  probably  can 
understand. 

3.  We  must  carefully  discriminate  between  in- 
dividual and  universal  corruption.  Some  pas- 
sages which  disclose  only  the  former  have  often 

[  150  ] 


Premillenarianism 

been  said  to  teach  the  latter.  Individual  wicked- 
ness, doubtless,  reaches  a  height  under  the  light 
and  influence  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  not  seen  in 
any  other  condition  in  which  man  may  be  placed. 
The  Gospel  is  the  occasion  of  this  development ;  it 
stirs  up  the  indwelling  depravity  of  the  soul,  and, 
unless  the  individual  yields  to  the  power  of  di- 
vine truth,  an  increase  in  his  impiety  is  the  inev- 
itable consequence.  Paul,  in  his  epistles,  often 
recognizes,  and  sometimes  broadly  states  this 
truth.  We  feel  its  presence  in  almost  every  por- 
tion of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  presented  in  the 
*' Parable  of  the  Tares  of  the  Field.''  There  will 
be  at  the  end  of  the  world  both  wheat  and  tares ; 
which  shall  predominate,  is  no  part  of  the  object 
of  this  parable  to  teach,  though  in  the  natural 
world  wheat  usually  does,  but  as  the  wheat  is  de- 
veloped, so  are  the  tares — as  one  ripens  for  the 
garner,  the  other  matures  for  the  flames.  So  as 
men  are  developed  in  holiness,  those  who  reject 
Christ,  will  unfold  in  wickedness.  This  parable 
does  not  teach,  as  is  often  said,  the  prevalence  of 
universal  corruption  at  the  end  of  the  world;  it 
teaches  only  individual  corruption. 

So,  also,  Paul  urges  Timothy  (2  Tim.,  iii;l)  to 
faithfulness  in  his  ministerial  duties,  and  then,  by 
way  of  warning,  says:  ^^This  know  also,  that  in 
the  last  days  perilous  times  shall  come. ' '  He  then 
portrays  by  single  words,  a  long  catalogue  of  sins 
which  will  be  exhibited  in  men.  The  apostle  is 
here  evidently  speaking  of  the  present  dispensa- 
tion as  a  whole,  which  he  styles  the  last  days. 

[151] 


Science  and  Prayer 

The  godless  men  of  wMch  lie  spoke,  were  already 
in  existence  for  lie  commanded  Timothy  to  turn 
away  from  them.  He  declared  that  as  Jannes 
and  Jambres  opposed  Moses,  so  those  men,  at  that 
time,  resisted  the  truth,  but  that  as  their  charac- 
ters shall  be  fully  manifested  by  their  deeds,  they 
shall  **  proceed  no  further ''  in  their  iniquity. 
The  apostle  does  not  teach  the  universal  corrup- 
tion of  the  race  at  the  close  of  this  dispensation, 
but,  rather,  that  malignant,  individual  impiety 
which  is  developed  in  those  that  oppose  the  Gos- 
pel. Such  men  are  often  found  in  communities 
where  believers  decidedly  predominate. 

4.  We  must  also  bear  in  mind,  that  the  com- 
ing of  Christ  to  destroy  Jerusalem  was  announced 
by  the  great  teacher  himself,  and  with  great 
warmth  and  particularity  pressed  upon  the  at- 
tention of  the  disciples.  This  event  is,  indeed,  a 
symbol  of  the  second  coming  of  Christ;  words 
which  predicted  the  one  event,  also  foretell  the 
other.  Yet,  it  seems  to  be  clear  that  we  are  not  to 
expect  an  exact  counterpart,  at  the  second  com- 
ing, of  all  the  details  in  the  prediction  of  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Only  the  great  outlines 
— the  prominent  features  of  the  earlier  event — 
will  be  reproduced  in  the  latter. 

5.  We  are  not  to  expect,  as  we  have  already  in- 
timated, that  every  individual  of  the  race  will  be 
regenerated, — only  that  the  Gospel  will  decidedly 
bear  sway;  Jesus  will  be  acknowledged  King  in 
Zion;  probably  for  a  long  period,  none  will 
openly    oppose    the    Gospel;    as    Moses,   in   his 

1 152  ] 


Premillenarianism 

song  of  triumph  at  the  Eed  Sea,  declared  that  be- 
fore the  display  of  God 's  power  the  heathen  should 
be  still  as  a  stone,  while  Israel  marched  into  the 
promised  land,  so  shall  it  be  throughout  the  earth 
before  Christ  comes  to  lead  his  ransomed  hosts 
into  their  everlasting  rest.  But  since  conversion 
does  not  utterly  uproot  the  depraved  nature  of 
man,  each  new  generation  which  appears,  will 
likewise  be  converted  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel. Such  a  view  is  probably  demanded  by  the 
Scriptures,  and  it  naturally  provides  for  the  apos- 
tacy  that  is  seemingly  to  occur  just  before  the 
coming  of  Christ.  Thus  the  Scriptures,  announc- 
ing that  apostacy,  are  seen  to  be  in  no  way  dis- 
cordant with  the  view  of  the  universal  prevalence 
of  the  Gospel  under  the  present  dispensation. 
By  following  these  suggestions,  there  is  not  a  pas- 
sage in  the  New  Testament,  which  we  are  now  able 
to  understand,  that  does  not  find  a  natural  and 
easy  interpretation,  which  beautifully  harmonizes 
with  the  general  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  rela- 
tive to  the  subject  in  hand. 

But,  it  is  objected  again,  that  the  world  is  ac- 
tually growing  worse.  It  is  too  true  that  the  cor- 
ruption of  men  is  now  most  fearful.  It  is  no  part 
of  my  object  to  represent  the  case  in  a  better  light 
than  the  facts  will  permit.  It  is  true  that  wars 
still  desolate  the  earth,  but  they  are  less  barba- 
rous than  in  former  times.  Then  non-combatants 
in  the  enemy's  country  were  regarded  as  foes 
and  without  regard  to  sex  or  age  were  ruthlessly 
slain,  now  those  not  under  arms  are  protected 

[153] 


Science  and  Prayer 

and  cared  for.  Then  military  prisoners  were  sold 
into  slavery  or  put  to  death,  now  they  are  hu- 
manely incarcerated  and  fed.  Then  the  wounded, 
uncared  for,  were  left  to  die  on  the  battle-field, 
now  our  armies  are  followed  by  Christian  men 
and  women,  who  tenderly  care  for  the  sick  and 
the  dying.  Is  not  that  an  advance  on  the  past? 
Slavery,  which  bound  in  its  chains  half  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  Eoman  Empire  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  has  nearly  disappeared  from  the  earth. 
Prisons,  into  which,  at  that  time,  the  influence 
of  the  Gospel  never  entered,  except  in  the  person 
of  incarcerated  believers,  now  are  made  to  feel 
the  transforming  touch  of  Christian  love.  Crim- 
inals are  now  men  to  be  saved  as  well  as  punished. 
If  any  man  will  compare  the  present  criminal 
code  of  almost  any  European  nation  with  that 
of  a  century  ago,  he  will  see  that  barbarism  is 
fast  disappearing.  Persecution,  once  prevalent, 
is  not  now  tolerated  except  to  a  limited  extent, 
in  any  nation  of  the  earth.  It  is  in  vain  to  urge 
that  the  human  heart  is  unchanged,  and  that  men 
would  persecute  now  if  they  had  the  power,  for 
those  statutes  and  that  public  opinion  that  robs 
them  of  it,  are  decisive  evidences  of  a  better 
condition  of  things.  Theological  controversies 
have  lost  their  bitterness,  and  the  various  sects 
of  Christendom  are  working  together  on  many 
fields  for  the  establishment  of  Christ's  kingdom. 
The  doctrine  of  religious  liberty,  as  enunciated 
by  Eoger  Williams,  is  by  degrees  gaining  a  foot- 
hold even  in  the  Catholic  countries  of  Europe, 

[154] 


Premillenarianism 

and  is  planted  in  every  American  and  English 
mission  on  the  globe.  The  work  of  modern  mis- 
sions began  with  the  opening  of  the  last  century. 
The  efforts,  though  at  first  feeble,  were  mighty 
through  God  to  the  pulling  down  of  strongholds. 
Each  year  new  mission  enterprises  have  been 
inaugurated,  until  the  church  begins  to  press 
hard  upon  the  hosts  of  darkness.  Many  of  the 
worst  practices  of  idolatry  have  already  ceased. 
Whole  peoples  have  been  Christianized.  Nations, 
which  a  few  years  since  shut  their  gates  against 
the  Gospel,  now  throw  them  open  for  its  ingress. 
Even  the  strongholds  of  Japan  and  China  and 
Burma  and  Madagascar  have  been  carried  by 
Christ's  sacramental  host.  The  mother  of  har- 
lots has  been  compelled  to  yield  to  the  power 
of  a  comparatively  free  government,  which  is 
the  direct  product  of  an  open  Bible.  Christian 
labor  in  Christian  countries  is  becoming  more 
thorough  and  pervasive.  As  the  morning  light 
which  gilds  the  mountain  tops,  at  last  streams 
down  into  every  dark  valley  and  ravine,  so  the 
Gospel  in  our  day  goes  down,  as  a  quickening 
light,  into  the  darkest  dens  of  vice  in  our  cities. 
Yet  all  that  has  been  done  by  missions  in  Chris- 
tian or  in  heathen  lands,  is  regarded  as  only 
a  preparatory  work.  While  missionaries  have 
proclaimed  the  Gospel,  they  have  been  studying 
the  religions  and  character  of  the  heathen,  and 
translating  the  Bible  and  religious  books  into 
their  languages.  How  can  any  man  face  such  an 
array  of  facts  and  declare  that  the  world  is  grow- 

[155] 


Science  and  Prayer 

ing  worse?  Are  not  these  providences  of  God, 
as  well  as  his  word,  prophetic  of  the  speedy  con- 
version of  our  race,  by  the  preaching  of  his 
Gospel? 

If  this  does  not  take  place  under  this  dispensa- 
tion, then  the  work  of  the  Spirit  is,  in  a  great 
measure,  a  failure.  He  could  not  enter  more 
largely  into  the  Church,  in  some  future  dispensa- 
tion, than  he  does  in  this,  if  scriptural  language 
means  anything.  He  is  poured  out  now.  This 
began  at  Pentecost,  and  has  been  repeated  often 
since  then.  Pentecost  more  than  once  has  been 
outdone.  Men  are  now,  like  Stephen,  filled  with 
the  Spirit.  Nothing  could  be  done  for  the  salva- 
tion of  men  that  is  not  done  now.  The  Spirit  con- 
victs the  world  of  sin.  He  regenerates  the  heart, 
creates  a  man  anew  in  Christ  Jesus,  enters  into 
him  and  dwells  as  in  a  temple,  strengthens  him 
in  afifliction,  succors  him  in  temptation,  intercedes 
for  him  through  the  desires  that  he  awakens 
within  him.  He  unfolds  to  him  the  truth  of 
Christ,  and  leads  him  into  all  truth.  What  more 
could  he  do  ?  If  this  will  not  save  the  race,  then 
under  no  possible  condition  can  it  be  saved,  and 
the  eternal  Spirit  fails  in  his  work. 

A  writer  of  our  day  says,  the  salvation  of  man- 
kind will  not  now  take  place,  because  *Hhe  result 
of  this  experiment  of  preaching  the  Gospel  *4s 
the  demonstration  on  a  vast  and  appalling  scale, 
of  the  utter  indisposition  of  men,  spontaneously 
to  return  to  God,  and  the  hopelessness  of  their 
redemption,  unless  it  be  under  an  administration, 

[156] 


Premillenarianism 

in  which  the  great  agents  that  now  tempt  them  to 
evil,  shall  be  precluded  from  exerting  on  them 
their  deluding,  maddening  power,  and  the  Spirit 
of  God  takes  exclusive  and  absolute  possession  of 
their  hearts.'^  In  other  words,  under  existing 
circumstances,  the  Spirit  is  unable  to  perform  the 
task.  Such  a  representation  ignores  the  grand 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  man's  conversion.  Sup- 
pose that  Satan  is  shut  up  in  Hell,  and  that  all 
governments  and  hierarchies  that  oppose  the 
Church,  with  all  their  concomitant  corruptions, 
are  swept  out  of  the  way,  the  carnal  heart  still  re- 
mains, which  is  enmity  against  God,  and  is  not 
subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be. 
So  long  as  it  exists  there  will  be  allurement  to  sin, 
even  if  there  were  no  demons  to  suggest  tempta- 
tion from  without.  A  man  is  tempted,  says  an 
apostle,  when  he  is  drawn  away  by  his  own  lust, 
and  enticed.  The  binding  of  Satan  and  the 
destruction  of  the  anti- Christian  powers,  will  do 
but  little  toward  the  conversion  of  our  race,  so 
long  as  the  depraved  human  heart  remains  un- 
changed. 

Moreover,  the  Spirit  does  now  sometimes  con- 
vert a  man,  in  the  midst  of  the  most  corrupting 
influences,  when  all  the  opposing  powers  of  evil 
are  brought  to  bear  against  him.  He  carries 
forward  and  completes  his  salvation  in  the  teeth 
of  the  same  difficulties.  As  he  does  this  in  one 
instance,  he  can  do  it  in  another.  At  each  con- 
version the  opposing  forces  of  evil  are  weakened, 
and  the  forces  of  good  are  augmented.     So  that 

[157] 


Science  and  Prayer 

if  the  work  is  dependent  on  the  diminishing  of  the 
outward  powers  of  evil,  it  constantly  grows  less 
difficult,  and  as  there  are  multitudes  of  genuine 
conversions  each  year,  even  on  this  ground,  the 
probability  of  the  world  ^s  redemption  is  annually 
vastly  increased.  But  I  will  not  argue  the  ques- 
tion on  such  a  basis ;  it  seems  little  short  of  blas- 
phemy so  to  limit  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  The 
Almighty  will  not  fail  in  his  work.  He  knows 
nothing  of  difficulties.  He  can  as  easily  renew  a 
race  as  a  single  soul. 

But  this  work  on  the  part  of  the  Church,  is  pre- 
eminently one  of  faith.  The  first  element  of  that 
faith  is  to  believe  implicitly  what  God  has  prohi- 
ised.  He  that  weakens  the  faith  of  God^s  children 
in  the  promised  conversion  of  the  world  by  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel,  however  sincere  he  may 
be,  to  say  the  least,  mischievously  blunders.  He 
does  something,  perhaps  much,  to  hinder  the  at- 
tainment of  that  glorious  result.  He  also  robs 
the  Church  of  its  most  sublime  idea.  There  is 
sublimity  in  the  thought  of  one  who  goes  forth  to 
subdue  nations  by  the  force  of  arms,  but  how 
much  more  sublime  the  conception  of  subjecting 
them  to  Christ  by  simply  proclaiming  the  truth. 
This  is  the  sublimity  of  faith.  Such  a  victory  is 
not  with  confused  noise,  and  garments  rolled  in 
blood,  but  it  is  more  real  than  that  achieved  at 
Waterloo  or  Gettysburg,  because  it  is  dominion 
gained  over  the  souls  of  men.  It  is  not  a  forced 
and  outward  subjection,  but  a  glad  submission  to 
God.     *^The  ransomed  of  the  Lord  shall  return, 

[158] 


Premillenarianism 

and  come  to  Zion  with  songs,  and  everlasting  joy 
upon  their  heads.'' 

Then  the  vastness  of  the  work  adds  almost  im- 
measurably to  its  grandeur.  The  schemes  of 
statesmen,  for  the  good  of  a  single  nation,  are 
sometimes  inspiring.  The  conception  of  the  mar- 
tyred president,  when  he  determined  to  proclaim 
the  emancipation  of  four  millions  of  slaves  and 
make  good  his  proclamation  with  blows  dealt  out 
by  an  army  of  freemen,  has  awakened  the  admira- 
tion of  the  whole  civilized  world.  But  such  a 
thought,  however  grand  in  itself,  shrinks  into  in- 
significance, beside  the  conception  of  Jesus,  ut- 
tered on  some  solitary  mountain  of  Galilee,  to  a 
handful  of  followers,  who  had  been  gathered  from 
the  ranks  of  the  common  people, — **Go  ye  and 
make  disciples  of  all  nations.*'  They  were  not 
commanded  to  proclaim  political  freedom  to  any, 
but  to  preach  a  truth,  that  the  most  unlettered 
could  understand,  which,  when  received  by  the 
millions  of  the  race,  will  free  them  from  the  bond- 
age of  sin  and  make  them  forevermore  spiritual 
freemen  in  Christ  Jesus. 

This  work  shall  be  done.  The  kingdom  of 
Christ,  which  overlaps  all  state  boundaries  and 
includes  within  itself  all  nationalities,  shall  be  tri- 
umphantly set  up.  The  nations  shall  be  turned 
and  overturned,  until  He  whose  right  it  is  shall 
reign.  Then  it  shall  be  seen  that  even  the  folly  of 
Babel  has  been  made  to  praise  Christ,  for  in  every 
language  on  the  earth  shall  his  name  be  sung,  and 
on  every  returning  Sabbath,  the  voice  of  praise 
shall  be  heard  around  the  whole  globe. 

[159] 


THE  SUPREME  END  OF  THEOLOGICAL 

SCHOOLS 


THE    SUPREME    END    OF    THEOLOGICAL 

SCHOOLS 

During  the  past  few  years,  the  courses  of 
study,  and  the  methods  of  teaching  in  Theological 
Schools  have  been  sharply  criticised.  By  some 
college  and  university  presidents,  they  have  been 
declared  antiquated  and  quite  unable  to  meet  the 
demands  of  our  own  day.  These  able  critics 
have  insisted  upon  certain  radical  reforms,  which 
if  carried  into  effect,  would  be  not  far  from 
revolutionary. 

Having  spent  seventeen  of  the  forty-three  years 
of  my  public  life  in  teaching  Practical  Theology, 
it  may  not  be  inappropriate  for  me,  at  this  semi- 
centennial of  our  alma  mater,  to  contribute  my 
mite  to  this  important  discussion  by  throwing  out, 
in  the  rough,  some  thoughts  which  have  come  to 
me,  during  the  lapse  of  time,  concerning  the 
founding,  construction,  and  administration  of 
theological  schools.  I  enter  with  diffidence  upon 
such  a  task,  since  I  call  to  mind  that  these 
schools,  in  their  present  form,  are  the  embodiment 
of  the  wisdom  of  those  distinguished  and  conse- 
crated men,  who  have  wrought  in  theological  edu- 
cation with  such  power  and  manifest  success,  both 
in  Europe  and  America,  from  the  time  of  the 
reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  till  the 
present  hour. 

[  163  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

But  during  these  swift-revolving  years,  the 
conviction  has  become  deeply  rooted  in  my  own 
mind  that  our  theological  schools  should  be  so 
constructed  and  administered  as  to  contribute 
most  directly  and  effectively  to  the  great,  central 
work  enjoined  in  the  gospel  upon  all  of  Christ's 
followers,  the  seeking  and  saving  of  the  lost.  And 
it  is  now  clear  to  me  that  any  changes  in  the 
theological  schools  already  established  should 
be  made  in  subserviency  to  this  dominant 
duty. 

This  was  what  Christ  himself  came  into  this 
world  to  do.  When  he  freely  granted  salvation 
to  a  scorned  and  hated  publican,  he  gave  as  the 
all-sufficient  explanation  of  his  act,  *^For  the  Son 
of  man  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was 
losf  (Luke  19:10).  And  this  work,  the  seek- 
ing and  saving  of  the  lost,  explains  every  act  of 
Christ  that  pertains  to  our  race  from  the  time 
that  he  emptied  himself  of  his  glory  until  the 
present  hour.  It  also  distinguishes  the  gospel 
from  all  ethnic  or  race  religions.  They  present 
to  us  man  in  darkness  and  distress  seeking  after 
God;  the  gospel  presents  to  us  God,  and  God  in 
Christ,  seeking  after  lost  men. 

But  the  work  of  Christ  is  also  that  of  his  fol- 
lowers. They  are  one  with  him  and  are  his  rep- 
resentatives. He  said  to  his  immediate  disciples, 
**As  the  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I 
you.'*  And  he  made  his  work  theirs  in  circum- 
stances the  most  impressive.  He  had  risen  from 
the  dead,  and  had  appeared  to  all  the  Apostles; 

[164] 


Theological  Schools 

but  now,  on  some  mountain  in  Galilee,  lie  appeared 
to  above  ^ve  hundred  of  his  followers  at  once. 
It  was  just  before  his  ascension.  The  words  that 
he  now  uttered  were  among  his  very  last.  That 
circumstance,  as  well  as  their  weighty  import, 
reveals  their  transcendent  importance.  His  dis- 
ciples were  not  left  in  doubt  in  reference  to  their 
duty.  He  commanded  them  to  do  a  vast  but 
definite  work.  Assuring  them  that  all  authority 
in  heaven  and  earth  had  been  bestowed  upon  him, 
so  that  they  might  not  for  a  moment  doubt  that 
the  great  commission  which  he  was  about  to  give 
them  was  buttressed  by  the  will  of  Jehovah,  he 
said,  ^^Go  ye  therefore  and  make  disciples  of  all 
the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things,  whatsoever 
I  commanded  you.''  This,  in  different  phraseol- 
ogy, was  enjoining  on  them  the  very  work  that  he 
himself  came  to  do.  They  were  sent  by  their 
Lord  to  seek  out  the  lost  in  all  the  nations,  and 
under  God  to  make  disciples  of  them,  and  so  save 
them  from  the  love  of  sin  and  from  its  power 
and  destructiveness. 

This  great  commission  reveals  the  breadth  of 
thought  contained  in  the  term.  Salvation.  And 
whenever  in  this  address,  I  use  the  word,  **Save," 
or  **  Salvation, "  it  means  not  only  the  beginning 
of  the  new  life,  but  also  its  completion ;  not  simply 
justification,  acquittal  through  faith,  readjust- 
ment of  our  relations  to  God,  but  also  santifica- 
tion,  being  made  holy.    It  means  not  alone  the 

[  165  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

gracious  work  begun  by  the  Spirit  in  the  new 
birth  and  in  conversion,  but  that  work  carried  on 
until  the  believer  is  transformed  into  the  image 
of  Christ.  To  effect  this,  the  Lord  teaches  us  in 
this  commission  that  the  disciples  made  are  to  be 
set  apart  from  the  world  by  baptism  and  in- 
structed in  all  that  he  has  commanded.  So  that 
saving  the  lost  means  not  simply  passing  out 
of  death  into  life,  but  also  the  unfolding  and 
perfecting  of  that  life. 

Our  duty  then  is  clear  as  the  sunlight.  What- 
ever may  be  our  pursuit,  if  we  live  in  accord- 
ance with  the  divine  ideal,  all  of  our  acts  will 
wheel  into  lines,  and  those  lines  will  converge  to 
a  point,  and  that  point  will  be  the  seeking  and 
saving  of  the  lost,  making  disciples  of  all  the  na- 
tions. If  we  till  the  soil,  we  shall  turn  the  fur- 
row, and  reap  the  matured  harvest,  for  this  great 
end.  If  we  do  business  of  any  kind  and  thereby 
accumulate  wealth,  we  shall  do  it  for  the  supreme 
purpose  of  saving  lost  souls.  If  we  devote  our 
lives  to  medicine,  law,  teaching,  civil  engineering, 
we  shall  toil  in  such  professions  that  we  may  use 
what  we  acquire  of  material  things,  intellectual 
power,  knowledge,  and  experience,  in  rescuing 
men  from  sin.  If  we  are  indeed  Christ 's  this  will 
be  the  great  work  of  our  lives;  all  else  will  be 
strictly  subservient  to  it.  And  this  law  is  uni- 
versal. No  Christian  is  exempt  from  it.  No 
Christian  church  has  any  reason  but  this  for  its 
existence ;  nor  has  any  Christian  school,  academy, 
college,  university,  or  theological  seminary. 

[166] 


Theological  Schools 

In  New  Testament  times  there  sprang  up  two 
theological  schools  in  which  men  were  fitted  solely 
for  the  work  of  seeking  and  saving  the  lost.  Over 
the  first  Jesus  himself  presided.  The  twelve 
apostles  constituted  the  inner  circle  of  students; 
while  other  disciples,  including  some  women, 
made  up  the  outer  circle.  Jesus  taught  them, 
so  far  and  so  fast  as  they  could  receive  it,  all 
theological  doctrine.  He  set  forth  all  the  essen- 
tial facts  pertaining  to  God  and  men  and  to  their 
mutual  relations.  But  every  fact  was  a  concrete 
doctrine,  and  every  doctrine  flowered  out  into 
duty.  He  thus  furnished  his  disciples  with  the 
truth  by  the  proclamation  of  which,  men  every- 
where might  be  saved. 

But  every  work  that  he  required  of  them,  he 
himself  did ;  and  did  it  before  their  eyes,  that  they 
might  not  only  know  what  to  do,  but  how  to  do  it. 
During  his  entire  earthly  ministry,  which  they 
witnessed  and  in  which  they  shared,  with  marvel- 
ous self-sacrifice  he  toiled  to  save  the  lost.  None 
were  so  vile  as  to  lie  outside  the  sphere  of  his  love 
and  sympathy.  And  then  he  expressly  declared 
that  this  was  the  very  purpose  for  which  he  came 
to  the  earth.  That  the  disciples  might  not  mis- 
take his  great  mission,  he  set  it  forth  in  three 
matchless  parables,  the  lost  sheep,  the  lost  piece 
of  money,  and  the  lost  son.  This  mission  he 
finally  consecrated  with  his  blood.  He  laid  down 
his  life  for  the  lost.  And  at  the  close  of  the  three 
years  in  which  he  thus  taught  his  disciples,  and 
enforced  his  teaching  by  doing  and  dying,  in  his 

[167] 


Science  and  Prayer 

valedictory  address  he  sent  them  out  to  carry  on 
the  work  which  he  had  begun  and  into  which  with 
so  much  assiduity  he  had  initiated  them.  He  who 
made  no  mistakes,  educated  the  learners  that 
gathered  at  his  feet  to  do  just  one  thing,  to  seek 
and  save  the  lost  of  all  nations. 

Over  the  second  school  Paul  presided.  Like 
his  divine  Master,  he  gathered  around  him  a  band 
of  young  men ; — Timothy,  Titus,  Silvanus,  Tychi- 
cus,  John  Mark,  Aristarchus,  Epaphras  and 
some  others.  These  he  instructed  in  doctrine 
and  duty  and  breathed  into  them  his  own  devoted 
spirit.  They  accompanied  him  in  his  apostolic 
labors.  He  sent  them  to  carry  forward  to  com- 
pletion work  that  he  himself  had  begun.  Con- 
stantly before  their  eyes  was  their  great  leader 
and  teacher,  whose  soul  was  all  on  fire  to  preach 
to  the  heathen  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ ; 
in  whose  ear  the  divine  voice  continually  rang, 
^^Far  hence  unto  the  Gentiles'*;  who  declared 
that  he  would  not  build  on  another  man's  founda- 
tion, but  would  preach  the  gospel  where  no  one 
else  had  ever  proclaimed  it ;  who  did  preach  it,  in 
spite  of  manifold  and  bitter  persecutions,  in  syna- 
gogues, in  market  places,  in  prison  houses,  in 
courts  of  justice,  to  Roman  soldiers  to  whom  he 
was  chained,  and  his  purpose  was  to  preach  it 
in  the  then  distant  Spain.  Those  young  men 
inspired  by  the  words  and  acts  of  such  a  teacher, 
must  have  had  the  great  thought  interwoven  with 
every  fibre  of  their  being  that  their  work  on  earth 
was  simply  to  seek  and  save  the  lost. 

[  168  ] 


Theological  Schools 

While  these  schools,  presided  over  by  Jesus  and 
Paul,  in  all  respects  cannot  be  our  models  now, 
the  motive  which  controlled  them,  ought  unques- 
tionably to  dominate  the  theological  schools  of 
the  twentieth  century.  In  them  young  men  should 
be  fitted  solely  for  making  disciples  of  the  lost, 
and  training  them  for  effective  Christian  service. 

If  we  make  this  the  dominant  purpose  in  theo- 
logical education,  where.  First,  shall  we  plant  our 
theological  schools!  Undoubtedly,  just  where 
the  students  can  readily  reach,  and  preach  the 
gospel  to,  many  of  the  lost.  For  that  work  to 
which  they  have  consecrated  their  entire  lives,  to 
some  extent  must  be  carried  on,  side  by  side,  with 
their  theological  studies.  This  is  imperative,  if, 
in  these  students,  the  passion  for  saving  souls  is 
to  be  maintained  and  fanned  to  a  hotter  flame. 

But  the  best  opportunities  for  doing  a  work  of 
such  vital  importance  both  to  the  student  and  to 
the  lost  are  found  in  our  greater  cities ;  and  if  we 
are  intent  on  founding  theological  schools  which 
shall  contribute  most  directly  and  largely  to  the 
evangelization  of  the  nations,  without  a  moment 's 
hesitation  we  shall  plant  them  in  the  great  cen- 
ters of  population. 

But  keeping  clearly  in  view  the  great  end  of 
theological  instruction,  in  the  Second  place,  how 
many  theological  schools  shall  we  found?  Will 
half  a  dozen  in  the  eastern  portion  of  this  great 
republic  fill  up  the  full  measure  of  our  duty? 
There  are  men  in  our  country  from  five  hundred 
to  two  thousand  miles  away  from  any  theological 

[  169  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

school  of  their  own  denomination,  who  believe 
themselves  called  of  God  to  the  exclusive  work  of 
making  disciples  of  the  lost,  but  distance  and 
poverty  seem  to  them  insuperable  obstacles,  pre- 
cluding their  attendance  at  the  far  away  semi- 
nary. Whether  their  view  of  the  case  be  correct 
or  not,  so  at  all  events  they  think.  And  preach 
the  gospel  they  will,  in  spite  of  their  lack  of 
preparation. 

Now  the  patronage  of  colleges  and  universities 
always  has  been  largely  local.  Of  this  there  is 
ample  proof.  So,  if  in  their  own  or  in  some  ad- 
joining commonwealth  a  theological  school  were 
established,  they  would  avail  themselves  of  its  ad- 
vantages. If  it  is  our  purpose,  just  as  soon  as 
possible,  using  all  available  resources,  to  seek  out 
and  save  the  lost  at  home  and  abroad,  shall  we  not 
encourage  the  formation  of  theological  schools  in 
those  destitute  States,  even  if  such  schools  were 
compelled  to  do  their  work  under  discouraging 
limitations?  Would  it  not  hasten  the  salvation 
of  the  world  to  give  some  theological  education, 
even  though  it  were  not  the  most  comprehensive, 
to  men  who  will  enter  upon  their  life-work  with- 
out any,  unless  schools  are  planted  nearer  their 
own  doors?  Would  not  even  such  an  education 
make  them  far  more  efficient  in  the  work  of  saving 
the  lost  and  in  leading  and  training  the  churches 
of  which  they  will  inevitably  become  pastors? 
This  tentative  inquiry  is  forced  upon  any  thought- 
ful Christian,  who  makes  careful  observations  in 
the  States  west  of  the  Mississippi  Eiver. 

[170] 


Theological  Schools 

And  in  the  long  run,  the  multiplication  of  theo- 
logical schools,  instead  of  militating  against  those 
that  are  best  equipped  at  the  greater  centers  of 
population,  would  rather  build  them  up.  Many  a 
young  man,  waked  up  intellectually  by  attending 
the  theological  school  nearest  his  own  home, 
would  not  be  satisfied  until  he  had  reaped  the  ad- 
vantages of  the  best  that  could  be  had,  how- 
ever distant  it  might  be.  Perhaps  then  there 
is  no  valid  objection  to  establishing  such  schools 
in  the  far  West  except  a  lack  of  money.  Pas- 
tors thereby  would  be  rendered  more  efficient 
and  more  of  the  lost  would  be  sought  out  and 
saved. 

But  if  theological  schools  are  organized  for  the 
express  purpose  of  securing  the  salvation  of  lost 
men,  in  the  Third  place,  what  students  shall  we 
admit  to  their  privileges!  By  common  consent, 
college  graduates  of  undoubted  piety.  But  there 
are  others,  who  by  some  untoward  event  have  had 
their  college  course  cut  short.  Still  they  have 
read  a  little  Latin  and  Greek,  so  that,  with  a  fair 
apprehension  of  the  thought,  they  can  struggle 
through  a  paragraph  of  Caesar's  Commentaries 
and  of  Xenophon's  Anabasis.  They  have  ac- 
quired the  rudiments  of  pure  mathematics,  and 
dipped  slightly  into  natural  science,  and  may  be 
as  capable  of  thorough  work  in  a  theological 
school  as  some  college  graduates.  So  while  our 
standard  of  admission  is  rightly  and  wisely  high, 
impelled  to  secure  as  large  a  number  as  possible, 
who    are   ready   to    devote   all   their   time    and 

[171] 


Science  and  Prayer 

strength  to  the  work  of  making  disciples  of 
the  nations,  we  are  compelled  to  say,  perhaps 
with  a  shrug  of  the  shoulders,  let  these  serv- 
ants of  the  Lord  be  admitted  and  we  will  do 
what  we  can  to  fit  them  for  their  Christlike 
labor. 

But,  why,  if  we  are  impelled  by  the  supreme 
motive  of  saving  the  lost,  and  saving  the  greatest 
possible  number,  in  the  briefest  possible  time, 
should  we  make  that  the  limit?  "Why  should  we 
draw  the  line  there  against  the  admission  of  all 
others  I  Discipline  of  mind,  power  to  think  deeply 
and  clearly,  is  acquired  in  a  vast  variety  of 
ways.  Without  drill  in  the  schools,  some  men, 
like  Matthew  at  the  receipt  of  custom,  in  meeting 
the  strenuous  demands  of  business,  are  disci- 
plined to  accurate  thinking.  Some,  like  Lincoln, 
acquire  the  power  of  thinking  clearly  by  the  care- 
ful reading  of  weighty  books,  and  by  expressing 
in  accurately  written  propositions  the  thought 
discovered  in  them,  or  suggested  by  them.  Some 
go  to  school  in  newspaper  offices,  and  by  setting 
type,  or  by  doing  the  work  of  reporters,  become 
able  to  express  their  thought  correctly,  if  not  ele- 
gantly. In  fact  whenever  a  man  masters  any  one 
object  of  thought,  especially  if  to  his  thinking  he 
adds  the  doing  of  the  thing  thought  out,  he  thereby 
acquires  the  ability  to  think  clearly  and  justly. 
Dr.  Emmons  said,  *^He  is  a  learned  man  who  un- 
derstands one  subject:  and  he  is  a  very  learned 
man  who  understands  two  subjects.''  Men  dis- 
ciplined by  thinking  out  and  doing  some  thing  or 

[172] 


Theological  Schools 

things  well,  in  some  field  of  every-day  life,  are 
sometimes  called  of  God  to  devote  the  remainder 
of  their  lives  exclusively  to  the  work  of  seek- 
ing and  saving  the  lost.  They  are  often  so  far 
advanced  in  age  that  a  college  course  for  them  is 
impracticable;  so,  just  as  they  are,  they  come  to 
the  theological  school,  and  find  written  over  the 
door,  *^None  are  permitted  to  enter  here  except 
college  graduates,  or  those  whose  course  of  study 
is  equivalent  to  that  of  the  college/'  Turning 
away  with  disappointment  and  sorrow,  they  say, 
'* Necessity  is  laid  upon  us;  preach  the  gospel  we 
must,  even  though  the  theological  seminary  closes 
its  doors  against  us.''  Unaided,  at  all  events  by 
the  theological  school,  they  enter  on  their  work 
of  saving  men,  accomplishing  something  to  be 
sure,  yet  always  haunted  and  oppressed  with 
the  thought  that  they  might  have  done  vastly 
more,  might  have  saved  more  souls  from  sin 
and  death  and  hell,  if  by  competent  profes- 
sors they  had  been  piloted  through  a  course  of 
study  in  the  English  Bible,  Doctrinal  Theol- 
ogy, Church  History,  Homiletics  and  Pastoral 
Duties. 

If,  in  building  our  theological  schools,  we  are 
controlled  by  the  demand  squarely  laid  upon  us 
by  Christ  in  his  great  commission,  we  shall  cer- 
tainly provide  for  the  theological  training  of 
such  men  as  these.  We  cannot,  it  seems  to  me,  be 
true  representatives  of  him,  who  bowed  the 
heavens  and  came  down  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
seeking  and  saving  the  lost,  if,  by  our  refusal  to 

[173] 


Science  and  Prayer 

receive  these  applicants  for  theological  instruc- 
tion, we  compel  them  to  do  their  life-work  desti- 
tute of  the  equipment  that  they  might  and 
should  have  had. 

But  by  some  of  our  institutions  of  highest  grade 
cogent  reasons  have  been  urged  against  receiving 
them.  We  are  told  that  the  classes  in  theology 
must  be  fairly  graded  in  order  that  the  students 
may  be  stimulated  to  do  their  best  work.  Those 
most  thoroughly  disciplined  should  not  be  re- 
tarded in  their  progress  by  those  who  are  unable, 
at  least  in  the  same  time,  to  master  fairly  the 
subjects  under  discussion.  It  is  necessary,  there- 
fore, to  divide  and  suitably  classify  students  dif- 
fering widely  in  their  degrees  of  culture.  But  if 
all  were  admitted  to  the  same  school  and  suit- 
ably classified  the  amount  of  teaching  required 
would  be  nearly  doubled.  A  burden  so  great 
could  not  be  borne  by  the  faculty  of  instruction. 
But  this  formidable  objection  can  be  fully  met  by 
increasing  both  the  number  of  instructors,  and 
the  moneyed  endowments. 

But  some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  maintain  that 
even  the  presence  of  non-college  graduates  on 
the  grounds  and  under  the  roof  of  a  first-class 
theological  school  tends  to  lower  the  standard  of 
scholarship  and  to  bring  the  institution  into  dis- 
repute. While  we  have  no  real  sympathy  with 
this  objection,  and  believe  it  to  be  quite  baseless, 
yet  admitting  it  as  at  least  a  prejudice  to  be 
humored,  this  seeming  difficulty  can  be  overcome 
by  establishing  other  theological  schools  so  far 

[174] 


Theological  Schools 

away  that  the  institutions  of  higher  grade  could 
not  possibly  be  affected  by  them  for  weal  or  for 
woe. 

In  such  an  institution  students  who  have  not 
had  the  advantages  of  the  college  could  be  edu- 
cated not  only  for  the  pulpit  and  pastorate,  but 
also  for  the  work  of  the  colporter,  the  Bible-class 
teacher,  and  Sunday-school  superintendent,  and 
women  might  also  there  be  fitted  for  diaconal  ser- 
vice and  missionary  labor.  At  all  events,  on  one 
thing  we  insist,  that  we  cannot  in  our  educational 
work  be  true  to  the  great  commission,  unless 
somehow  and  somewhere  we  do  all  in  our  power 
to  give  theological  instruction  and  training  to  all 
those  whom  the  Lord  calls  to  the  exclusive  work 
of  making  disciples  of  the  lost,  whether  they  be 
graduates  of  college  or  not. 

In  the  earlier  history  of  our  own  denomination 
in  this  country,  most  of  our  churches  were 
planted  and  trained  by  men  who  never  received 
a  college  education.  Many  of  them  were  effective 
preachers.  Some  of  them,  like  John  Leland  and 
Alfred  Bennett,  were  men  of  rare  eloquence,  who 
swayed  at  will  great  audiences.  It  is  true  that 
most  of  the  churches  to  which  they  ministered, 
now  demand  pastors  of  broader  culture,  but  there 
are  fields  almost  innumerable  both  in  the  East 
and  West  whose  spiritual  necessities  would  be 
well  met  by  men  destitute  of  college  training,  if 
in  some  well-ordered  theological  school  they  were 
only  carefully  instructed  in  the  Scriptures,  bibli- 
cal doctrine,  and  in  the  whole  round  of  practical 

[175] 


Science  and  Prayer 

theology.  Many  of  these  students,  if  not  far  ad- 
vanced in  years,  would  probably  be  stirred  up  by 
sucli  instruction  to  enter  upon  a  broader  and 
more  thorough  course  of  study. 

While  we  are  sure  that  in  the  ministry  quality 
is  vastly  more  important  than  quantity,  all  the 
history  of  the  past  teaches  us  that  outside  of  col- 
lege walls,  we  sometimes  find  men  of  the  finest 
quality  and  of  the  greatest  worth.  And  when  we 
remember  the  hundreds  of  millions  of  our  fellow 
men  to  whom  the  gospel  has  never  yet  been 
preached,  the  tens  of  millions  of  formalists  who 
have  no  saving  knowledge  of  Christ,  the  fields  at 
home  and  abroad  that  are  ripe,  and  that  there  are 
but  few  reapers  to  gather  in  the  harvest  of  souls, 
we  cannot  but  feel  how  strong  and  solemn  our 
obligation  is  to  equip  as  many  laborers  as  pos- 
sible and  send  them  out  without  delay  on  the 
Christ-like  errand  of  seeking  and  saving  the  lost 
of  all  the  nations. 

But,  in  the  Fourth  place,  in  order  to  fit  men  for 
the  all-important  work  of  saving  the  lost,  what 
should  be  the  course  of  study  in  our  theological 
schools?  In  substance,  we  reply,  the  same  that 
we  now  usually  find  in  them ;  but,  it  seems  to  me, 
if  we  are  to  realize  our  aim,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  put  greater  emphasis  on  some  subjects  than 
we  do  now,  thus  quite  materially  modifying  the 
ordinary  curriculum,  without  any  radical  dis- 
placement of  old  topics.  And  it  may  be  wise  to 
require  the  student  to  acquaint  himself  with  So- 
ciology and  Pedagogy,  which  of  late  have  been 

[176] 


Theological  Schools 

knocking  at  the  doors  of  some  of  our  theological 
schools. 

First  of  all,  he,  who  like  his  Master,  goes  forth 
to  seek  and  save  the  lost,  must  have  a  clear, 
strong  grasp  on  the  message  which  he  is  sent  to 
proclaim.  And  since  this  message  is  found  alone 
in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
the  fundamental  subject  in  the  theological  cur- 
riculum should  be  the  written  word  of  God. 
These  inspired  writings  should  be  studied  if  pos- 
sible in  the  language  in  which  they  were  written. 
Still  a  devout  and  diligent  student,  through  the 
best  translations,  can  acquire  a  just  and  adequate 
knowledge  of  the  Bible ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
most  students  who  study  the  Scriptures  in  their 
original  tongues  are  usually  enabled  to  appre- 
hend their  real  import  as  much  by  the  transla- 
tions to  which  they  properly  constantly  refer,  as 
by  what  they  independently  discover  in  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  texts.  But  be  this  as  it 
may,  all  theological  teachers,  with  entire  una- 
nimity, will  urge  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
for  him  who  is  called  to  preach  the  gospel  to 
lost  men,  to  become  in  some  way  thoroughly  ac- 
quainted with  the  Scriptures  whence  he  derives 
his  message. 

But  this  is  a  task  as  difficult  as  it  is  important. 
To  help  the  student  fairly  to  accomplish  it  what 
must  be  his  teacher's  mode  of  procedure?  There 
are  two  ways  of  teaching  the  Bible ;  both  are  im- 
portant, and  they  should  be  combined.  One  is  to 
subject  some  portions  of  the  Scriptures,  a  scrap 

[177] 


Science  and  Prayer 

of  history  or  prophecy  here,  an  epistle  there,  to  a 
careful,  painstaking,  minute  examination,  and  let 
this    be    the    model   to    guide    the    student    and 
preacher  in  all  his  future  study  of  God's  word. 
He  goes  to  his  life-work  well  acquainted  with  some 
patches  of  the  Scriptures;   to  his  mind  they  are 
luminous  spots  in  a  wide,  untraversed  territory; 
but  working  his  way  out  from  these  he  may  be  able 
successfully  to  explore  the  far  greater  remainder. 
There  is  much  good  sense  in  such  a  method  of 
study,  and  every  student  should  have  the  great 
benefit  that  manifestly  flows  from  it.     But  while 
we  hold  fast  to  this,  we  also  maintain  that  every 
student,  whose  sole  work  in  life  is  to  be  the  proc- 
lamation of  God's  word,  should,  under  the  guid- 
ance of  a  competent  teacher,  investigate  as  thor- 
oughly as  may  be  every  book  of  the  Bible,  learn 
the  characteristics  of  each  history,  song,  proph- 
ecy, gospel  and  epistle,  the  object  for  which  each 
was  written,  and  make  a  general  analysis  of  its 
thought.     Having  thus   surveyed  the  whole,  he 
will  better  understand  and  more  keenly  appreci- 
ate any  one  of  its  parts.     He  gets  also  through 
such  study  a  clear  view  of  the  ever-unfolding 
revelation  of  the  character  and  purposes  of  God, 
from  the  account  in  Genesis  of  paradise  lost  by 
sin,  to  the  Apocalypse  in  which  are  portrayed  the 
ineffable  glories  of  paradise  regained  through  the 
love  and  grace  of  God. 

But  shall  the  student  be  taught  higher  criti- 
cism? Since  he  must  often  meet  the  notions  em- 
bodied in  it,  which  have  been,  and  are  being,  so 

[178] 


Theological  Schools 

industriously  spread  abroad,  good  sense  would 
dictate  that  all  the  essential  views,  on  both  sides 
of  this  controversy,  should  be  impartially  pre- 
sented, that  the  student  may  be  able  intelligently 
to  judge  for  himself  where  the  truth  lies.  He 
should  be  warned  against  all  partial,  one-sided 
advocacy ;  he  should  be  carried  back  far  into  the 
past  to  the  very  roots  of  this  movement ;  should 
be  led  to  a  careful  survey  of  the  present  opinions 
of  the  critics  in  all  their  manifold  variations  and 
antagonisms ;  so  that  whatever  of  truth  there  may 
be  in  them,  he  may  receive,  and  whatever  of  error, 
he  may  reject.  He  should  ascertain  for  himself 
what  in  this  contention  is  unsubstantial  theory, 
and  what  is  established  fact.  From  broad  candid 
study  like  this  the  truth  loses  nothing,  but  gains 
much. 

But  what  the  student  needs  to  know  beyond  all 
that  higher  criticism  essays  to  offer,  beyond  a 
knowledge  of  the  literary  character  of  the  books 
of  the  Bible,  their  authors,  the  time  when,  and 
the  people  to  whom,  they  were  written,  is  their 
actual  contents,  the  divine  thought  with  which 
they  are  freighted;  since  that  thought  made 
known  to  men  is  the  divinely-chosen  means  by 
which  the  lost  are  to  be  saved.  The  superlative 
emphasis  therefore  in  the  curriculum  of  a  theo- 
logical school  should,  it  seems  to  me,  be  laid  on 
the  study  of  the  entire  word  of  God. 

But  since  nothing  is  really  known  until  it  is 
apprehended  in  its  relations,  we  must  give  to  sys- 
tematic theology  a  very  prominent,  though  it  be 

[179] 


Science  and  Prayer 

a  subordinate,  place  in  our  curriculum.  We 
choose  the  term,  systematic,  because  so  far  forth 
as  biblical  theology,  which  happily  attracts  so 
much  attention  at  the  present  time,  presents  to  us 
the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures  in  their  real  and 
vital  relations,  it  is  systematic.  These  doctrines 
are  not  isolated  like  the  scattered  stones  of  the 
street,  but  vitally  united  like  the  various  parts  of 
the  body,  so  that  they  form  a  living  organism. 
On  the  other  hand  systematic  theology  includes 
metaphysical  theology,  for  in  so  far  as  we  justify 
the  relations  in  which  we  present  the  doctrines 
of  the  Bible,  we  necessarily  reveal  their  philo- 
sophical basis;  so  that  the  term  systematic,  vir- 
tually includes  both  biblical  and  metaphysical 
theology.  Now  no  one  can  have  a  clear,  just  con- 
ception of  any  one  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  un- 
til he  apprehends  it  in  its  vital  relations  to  other 
doctrines.  To  present  a  truth  out  of  its  real  rela- 
tions distorts  it,  and  often  transmutes  it  into  in- 
sidious, destructive  error.  Systematic  theology 
which  keeps  us  from  such  a  folly  and  disaster, 
which  gives  a  true  knowledge  of  doctrine  by  re- 
vealing it  to  us  in  its  just  relations,  is  greatly 
decried  in  our  day.  But  scientific  theology,  de- 
cried though  it  be,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  keep 
even  the  preacher,  who  believes  the  gospel  with 
all  his  heart,  from  one-sidedness  and  practical 
heresy. 

But  a  knowledge  of  church  history  is  also  im- 
portant for  him  who  goes  forth  from  our  theo- 
logical schools  to  make  disciples  and  to  lead  them 

[180] 


Theological  Schools 

in  all  Christian  activity.  Just  as  the  sculptor  or 
painter,  in  order  to  reach  the  highest  excellence 
in  his  art,  needs  to  trace  its  development  through 
all  the  past  centuries,  so  the  ambassador  of  Christ, 
in  order  to  do  his  work  most  wisely  and  efficiently, 
must  know  what  the  church  has  hitherto  wrought 
out  both  in  doctrine  and  life. 

The  renowned  leaders  of  the  church  in  all  the 
past  centuries  arouse  young  men  and  spur  them  on 
to  highest  achievement.  Its  martyrs  shame  them 
out  of  all  complaint  for  any  hardships  that  they 
may  be  called  upon  to  endure  for  Christ's  sake. 
Church  history  also  reveals  to  the  student  the 
great  principles  that  underlie  the  growth  of  God's 
kingdom  here  on  earth,  and  the  onward  march  of 
God's  providences  in  the  fulfillment  of  his  great 
purposes  of  grace  to  our  fallen  race.  And  how- 
ever many  things  he  may  see  in  all  this  past  his- 
tory, which  he  cannot  but  deplore,  he  finds  that 
the  final  outcome  vindicates  Christ's  declaration 
concerning  his  church:  ^^The  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  it."  And  this  fills  him  with 
confidence  in  the  final  triumph  of  the  gospel. 
History  has  also  preserved  the  molds  of  doctrine 
of  the  past  centuries  and  these  enable  him  so  to 
express  doctrine  now  as  to  reflect  any  new  light 
that  has  broken  forth  from  God's  word.  The 
varied  expression  of  doctrine  teaches  the  student 
that  while  one  theological  formula  has  been  re- 
placed by  another,  the  truth,  which  successive 
generations  fail  to  express  perfectly,  is  eternal 
and    immutable.     The     sermons     of    successful 

[181] 


Science  and  Prayer 

preachers,  down  through  the  Christian  centuries, 
help  him  to  gauge  the  real  worth  of  his  own  dis- 
courses, and  stimulate  him  to  higher  achieve- 
ment ;  the  prayers  of  the  past  crystallized  in  ritual 
enrich  his  own  both  in  thought  and  expression; 
the  best  hymns  of  the  whole  Christian  era  give 
him  a  clear  conception  of  what  a  good  hymn  is 
both  in  matter  and  poetic  form.  History  also 
gives  to  him  breadth  and  liberality.  He  learns 
from  the  doctrinal  formulas,  sermons,  prayers, 
and  hymns  of  the  past  nineteen  centuries  that  be- 
lievers of  different  epochs,  countries,  races,  civ- 
ilizations, communions  are  in  substantial  accord 
in  reference  to  most  of  the  central  truths  of  the 
gospel.  Moreover,  history  lifts  a  warning  voice 
against  extremes  or  one-sidedness  in  thought  or 
conduct,  by  revealing  the  disasters  which  unbal- 
anced thinking  and  acting  have  brought  upon  the 
church.  It  also  takes  the  conceit  out  of  a  learner, 
by  showing  him  that  virtue  and  knowledge  are  not 
peculiar  to  his  own  generation,  but  that  large 
areas  of  truth  were  known  before  he  was  born. 
It  fits  him  too  to  detect  and  refute  the  errors  by 
which  he  may  be  confronted.  He  sees  that  what- 
ever may  be  said  of  the  transmigration  of  souls, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  of  the  transmi- 
gration of  error.  That  the  brand-new  arguments 
by  which  the  gospel  is  now  at  last  to  be  utterly 
overthrown  are  as  old  as  Celsus,  or  as  musty  as 
Gnosticism — malodorous  mummies  of  scepticism 
pulled  out  of  their  mouldy  tombs,  and  dressed  in 
ninteenth-century  clothes.     So  history  helps   to 

[182] 


Theological  Schools 

make  him  what  Paul  said  the  pastor  must  be, 
''able  to  convict  the  gainsayers. ' ^ 

But  perhaps  the  crowning  benefit  derived  from 
this  study  is  that  it  shows  the  student  what  fools 
men  have  made  of  themselves  and  into  what 
morasses  of  difficulties  they  have  plunged  when- 
ever they  have  departed  in  opinion  or  life  from 
the  simple  word  of  God.  And  this  will  be  a  pow- 
erful influence  to  keep  him  true  to  the  inspired 
Scriptures. 

But  of  late  it  has  been  seriously  contended  that 
Sociology  and  Pedagogy  should  have  a  place  in 
the  curricula  of  our  theological  schools.  It  is 
true  that  these  studies  are  full  of  valuable  sug- 
gestions to  any  one  who  toils  for  the  good  of  his 
fellow  men,  but  there  is  nothing  in  them  which 
distinctively  belongs  to  theological  training. 
Whatever  they  yield  that  is  valuable  is  just  as 
necessary  for  the  teacher,  the  lawyer,  or  the  phy- 
sician, as  for  the  minister  of  the  gospel ;  in  short, 
these  studies  are  very  desirable  factors  in  the 
education  of  every  citizen.  They  manifestly  be- 
long therefore  not  to  the  theological  school,  but  to 
the  college  and  the  university. 

As  to  the  Sociology  of  the  New  Testament,  that 
is  simply  the  presentation  of  the  manner  in  which 
Christ  and  his  apostles  won  men  to  the  truth,  and 
laid  down  the  principles  by  which  they  should  be 
controlled  in  all  their  relations  to  society  and  the 
state.  All  this  should  be  set  forth  in  any  thor- 
ough exposition  of  the  Gospels,  the  Acts  and  the 
Epistles.     Any  student,  under  the  guidance  of  his 

[183] 


Science  and  Prayer 

exegetical  professors,  could  easily  explore  this 
entire  subject;  but  if  the  elucidation  of  this  im- 
portant topic  should  prove  to  be  too  great  a  bur- 
den for  our  professors  of  exegesis,  then  a  pro- 
fessor of  the  Sociology  of  the  Bible  should  find 
his  place  in  all  the  faculties  of  our  theological 
schools. 

Now,  still  keeping  in  mind  the  fact  that  in  the 
theological  school  students  should  be  expressly 
trained  for  the  work  of  making  disciples  of  the 
lost  and  of  leading  those  disciples  in  all  Christian 
activity,  it  is  unquestionably  incumbent  upon  us 
to  instruct  them  thoroughly  in  Pastoral  Buties. 
Much  more  time  and  attention  should  be  given 
to  such  instruction  than  has  hitherto  been  re- 
quired even  in  our  best  equipped  seminaries.  It 
does  not  need  to  be  said  that  the  primal  duty  of  a 
pastor  or  shepherd  is  to  go  after  the  lost  until  he 
finds  them;  and  when,  amid  the  rejoicing  of  the 
heavenly  host,  he  has  brought  them  home  to  God 
and  into  the  fold,  it  is  his  duty  to  feed  them  that 
they  may  grow  in  all  the  graces  of  the  Spirit  and 
become  in  thought  and  purpose  and  life  like 
Christ  himself. 

Both  in  making  disciples  and  in  building  them 
up  into  stalwart.  Christian  manhood,  the  most 
prominent  instrumentality  is  preaching.  This 
was  divinely  instituted.  It  has  been  consecrated 
by  prophets,  apostles,  elders  and  by  Christ  him- 
self. It  has  pleased  God  through  the  foolishness 
of  preaching  (not  by  foolish  preaching)  to  save 
those  that  believe.    Preaching  without  the  shadow 

[184] 


Theological  Schools 

of  a  doubt  is  the  preeminent  duty  of  every  one 
whose  exclusive  work  is  to  save  the  lost.  It  fol- 
lows therefore  that  in  the  making  and  delivery  of 
sermons,  every  student  in  our  theological  schools 
should  be  carefully  taught  and  thoroughly 
drilled. 

First,  he  should  be  taught  how  to  get  his  mes- 
sage out  of  God's  word,  so  that  that  message  will 
be  the  real  thought  of  God,  and  not  some  theory 
or  vagary  of  his  own  that  he  has  saddled  on  his 
text. 

Second,  the  student  must  be  taught  to  put  the 
message  that  he  derives  from  the  word  of  God 
into  language  readily  understood  by  those  to  whom 
he  speaks.  Else,  if  at  first  they  give  him  their 
attention,  he  cannot  hold  it.  Men  will  not  long 
listen  to  a  speaker  whom  they  cannot  understand. 
A  sermon  most  fitting  and  impressive  addressed 
to  an  audience  of  learned  men  might  be  as 
unintelligible  as  Chinese  to  a  congregation  of 
American  workmen  from  some  manufacturing 
establishment. 

Years  ago,  in  my  own  pulpit,  a  distinguished 
brother  and  college  president  preached  to  a  con- 
gregation of  plain,  sensible  people,  and  at  the 
start,  endeavoring  to  elucidate  his  text,  said, 
^^The  Greek  particle  hina  in  this  text  is  illative, 
and  it  is  here  used  not  in  its  telic,  but  in  its  ecbatic 
sense!*' 

While  I  am  sure  that  no  young  men  from  any  of 
our  theological  schools  would  be  guilty  of  such 
gross  impropriety,  yet  they  often  unwittingly  err 

[185] 


Science  and  Prayer 

by  using  in  their  sermons  the  technical  terms  of 
theology.  Very  useful  terms  they  are  to  the 
student,  and  pregnant  with  meaning;  but  they 
are  out  of  place  in  the  pulpit. 

Two  squirrels  that  often  come  to  my  chamber 
window  for  nuts  would  be  excellent  instructors  of 
some  preachers.  They  very  quickly  push  their 
sharp  teeth  through  the  hard  shells  of  the  wal- 
nuts, and  taking  out  the  sweet  and  nourishing 
meat  eat  it  with  avidity,  while  they  cast  the  empty 
and  worthless  shucks  aside.  But  very  few  in  the 
average  congregation  are  able  to  break  for  them- 
selves the  hard,  dry  shells  of  scientific  theological 
terms,  and  the  live  preacher  will  do  it  for  them. 
As  he  constructs  his  sermon,  he  will  crack  these 
nuts,  and  carry  to  the  people  the  nourishing  truth 
which  they  contain,  but  will  leave  the  shucks  in 
his  study.  No  man  is  fit  to  preach  until  he  has 
learned  the  distinction  between  a  theological 
treatise  and  a  sermon. 

Third,  the  students  of  our  theological  schools, 
if  they  are  ever  to  get  at,  and  save,  men  through 
preaching,  must  also  learn  the  distinction  between 
an  essay  and  a  sermon;  that  an  essay  is  a  dis- 
sertation on  some  fact,  or  principle,  or  doctrine, 
in  which  only  the  third  person  is  used  and  no  one 
is  addressed;  while  a  sermon  is  a  direct  address 
to  men,  a  personal  appeal  in  which,  as  in  Christ 's 
sermon  on  the  mount,  the  second  person  inevi- 
tably rises  to  the  lips.  The  preacher  says  ^^you'^ 
to  him  whom  he  would  save  from  sin  and  death. 
Bulwer  in  his  Caxtoniana  says,  **The  essayist 

[186] 


Theological  Schools 

quietly  affirms  a  proposition;  the  orator  vehe- 
mently asks  a  question.  The  writer  asserts  that 
the  'excesses  of  Cataline  became  at  last  insup- 
portable even  to  the  patience  of  the  Senate.' 
'How  long  will  you  abuse  our  patience,  0 
Cataline r  exclaims  the  orator.'' 

But  fundamental  as  this  distinction  is,  and 
necessary  as  it  is  to  ministerial  success,  some  men 
in  the  pulpit,  eminent  for  their  talent,  seem  never 
to  have  learned  it.  A  pastor,  in  the  United 
States,  who  became  famous  for  his  literary  at- 
tainments, as  a  preacher  had  very  little  success. 
He  read  delightful  essays,  full  of  sonorous,  well- 
balanced  sentences,  upon  every  doctrine  and  duty 
of  the  Bible  and  upon  all  its  literary  beauties. 
Men  listened  with  the  same  sort  of  interest  that 
is  manifest  in  a  literary  club  when  some  talented 
member  reads  a  thoughtful  essay,  and  then  un- 
moved went  their  way.  His  senior  deacon,  who 
for  many  years  ardently  supported  him,  said  to 
me  one  day,  ''My  pastor  and  Peter  are  exact  op- 
posites.  Peter  preached  one  sermon  and  three 
thousand  were  converted;  but  my  pastor  has 
preached  three  thousand  sermons  and  one  has 
been  converted."  But  those  numerous,  so-called 
sermons  were  scholarly,  brilliant  essays,  that  and 
no  more. 

But  if  we  are  really  educating  the  students  in 
our  schools  to  make  disciples  of  the  lost  and  to 
train  them  in  Christian  living,  they  must  be  taught 
not  only  to  make  sermons,  but  also  to  deliver 
them.     A  good  delivery  is  often  more  than  half 

[187] 


Science  and  Prayer 

the  battle.  A  poorer  discourse  well  delivered  is 
often  vastly  more  effective  than  an  abler  one 
poorly  delivered.  What  strange  infatuation  con- 
trols us,  when  we  insist  upon  efficiency  in  He- 
brew, and  Aramaic,  and  Greek,  and  history,  and 
theology,  and  yet  at  the  best  pay  comparatively 
so  little  attention  to  teaching  men  how  to  speak 
with  clearness  and  force  and  manliness,  while 
public  speaking  is  to  be  the  most  constant  and 
important  work  of  their  whole  lives.  If  we  ap- 
preciate as  we  ought  that  the  exclusive  work  of 
these  students  in  all  their  future  life  on  earth  is 
to  get  at  men  and  save  them  by  preaching,  we 
shall  give  more  earnest  heed  to  their  training  in 
elocution. 

But  if  we  are  intent  on  making  disciples  of  the 
nations,  we  shall  not  only  teach  the  students  in 
theological  schools  the  divine  art  of  preaching, 
but  also  the  whole  round  of  pastoral  duties ;  how 
to  conduct  the  service  of  public  prayer  so  as  to 
stimulate  the  devotions  of  the  whole  congrega- 
tion ;  how  to  read  the  Scriptures  so  as  to  give  the 
sense;  how  to  read  hymns  so  as  to  reveal  their 
thought;  how  to  administer  impressively  the  or- 
dinances of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  how 
to  develop  the  spirit  of  worship  in  the  congrega- 
tion through  singing;  how  to  guide  and  stimulate 
the  church  in  all  its  benevolences;  how  to  build 
up  the  Sunday-school  and  Bible  classes;  how  to 
marry  the  betrothed  and  bury  the  dead;  how  to 
make  effective  pastoral  calls  on  all  classes;  how 
to  reach  non-church-goers;  how  to  deal  with  in- 

[188] 


Theological  Schools 

quirers ;  how  to  conduct  church  discipline ;  how  to 
get  an  entire  church  interested  in  saving  all 
classes  of  men,  and  the  community  interested  in 
the  church  and  its  work.  If  we  really  educate 
men  to  save  the  lost,  all  these  duties,  which  touch 
at  so  many  points  the  great  and  absorbing  end 
in  view,  must  be  taught  with  an  iteration  and 
earnestness  hitherto  unknown. 

And  the  instruction  given  in  these  duties  should 
be  tested  if  possible  by  actual  work  done,  while 
the  student  is  engaged  in  his  course  of  study. 
Let  him  and  his  professor,  when  they  have  the 
opportunity,  preach  and  do  other  pastoral  work 
together.  Moreover,  it  would  be  of  great  advan- 
tage to  the  student,  either  during  his  course  of 
study  or  immediately  after,  to  be  associated  with 
some  aggressive,  successful  pastor,  under  whose 
immediate  supervision  and  direction  he  shall,  for 
at  least  a  year,  give  himself  to  all  kinds  of  pas- 
toral work.  And  if  the  graduate  is  to  be  a  mis- 
sionary, it  would  greatly  help  him  in  his  work, 
and  enhance  his  effectiveness,  if  he  could  toil  for 
two  or  three  years  under  the  guidance  of  some 
veteran  laborer  on  the  foreign  field.  In  fact  the 
whole  work  of  making  disciples  at  home  and 
abroad  should  be  enthusiastically  studied  as  a 
divine  art,  ever  bearing  in  mind,  that  the  process 
of  saving  is  never  complete,  till  those  who  are 
rescued  from  sin,  are  presented  before  the  divine 
throne,  ^^  without  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such 
thing.  * ' 

We  have  not  discussed  the  subject  of  elective 

[189] 


Science  and  Prayer 

studies  because  it  does  not  seem  to  us  to  be  di- 
rectly involved  in  the  theme  under  consideration. 
But  any  liberty  granted  in  the  election  of  studies 
should  be  limited  by  the  great  principle  which  we 
have  endeavored  to  set  forth ;  the  subjects  chosen 
should  be  such  as  will  best  fit  the  student  for  the 
work  of  making  and  training  disciples. 

And  if  to  the  studies  already  named  another 
should  be  added,  it  is  that  of  interpretative  read- 
ing. The  public  reading  of  the  Scriptures  has  a 
prominent  place  in  pulpit  service.  Paul  exhorted 
Timothy  to  give  special  attention  to  it.  To  ex- 
press by  reading  correctly  and  forcibly  the 
thought  of  God  as  it  lies  in  the  inspired  writings 
adds  vast  power  to  the  public  ministrations  of 
any  preacher.  But  this  is  no  easy  task.  One 
must  first  understand  the  thought  of  the  passage 
that  he  wishes  to  read,  and  then  be  able  by  empha- 
sis and  tone  to  reveal  it  to,  and  impress  it  upon, 
those  that  hear.  The  professor  of  this  art  must 
be  skilled  both  in  interpretation  and  in  elocution. 
And  the  wretched  reading  of  the  Scriptures  with 
which  so  many  congregations  are  afflicted  renders 
such  a  professorship  imperative. 

But  if  we  found  and  administer  the  theological 
school  for  the  sole  purpose  of  seeking  and  saving 
the  lost,  what  kind  of  a  faculty  of  instruction  must 
we  have  ?  Upon  them  more  than  upon  all  else,  rests 
the  success  or  failure  of  the  theological  school. 
They  are  its  chosen  and  acknowledged  leaders. 
What  they  are,  the  school  will  be.  Like  priest, 
like  people.    Like  professors  to  a  large  extent  will 

[  190  ] 


Theological  Schools 

be  the  students,  and  the  pastors  and  missionaries 
educated  under  their  direction. 

In  answering  this  question,  **What  kind  of 
faculty  must  we  havef  some  things  indeed  are 
taken  for  granted  and  need  not  be  insisted  on 
here.  Of  course,  the  professor  must  thoroughly 
understand  what  he  attempts  to  teach.  How  can 
a  man  teach  what  he  does  not  know?  He  must 
also  have  the  power  so  to  put  before  his  classes 
the  facts  and  principles  of  his  subject  that  they 
will  apprehend  them  and  be  impressed  by  them. 
In  other  words  he  must  know  the  practical  art  of 
teaching. 

But  what  the  professor  himself  is,  is  still  more 
important.  Character,  from  which  flows  forth 
influence  as  silent,  constant,  pervasive  and  mighty 
as  the  force  of  gravitation,  is  the  supreme  factor 
to  be  taken  into  account  in  the  selection  of  our 
theological  instructors.  By  what  they  are,  vastly 
more  than  by  what  they  teach,  they  shape  the 
characters  and  determine  the  destinies  of  the  stu- 
dents, who  look  up  to  them  with  trust  and  often 
with  admiration.  No  men  on  earth  need  more 
than  theological  professors  to  walk  with  God,  and 
to  incorporate  into  their  own  characters  the 
character  of  Christ. 

But  we  must  not  forget  that  these  professors 
who  have  the  three  qualifications  named,  a  clear 
apprehension  of  what  they  are  to  teach,  aptness 
in  teaching,  and  characters  molded  after  that  of 
Christ,  are  called  to  fit  men  for  the  exclusive  and 
all-important   work   of   seeking  and  saving  the 

[191] 


Science  and  Prayer 

']  "  ■ 

lost.  But  how  can  they  train  others  to  do  this 
unless  they  know  how  to  do  it  themselves  1  How 
can  a  man  teach  others  to  swim,  if  he  himself  can- 
not swim?  How  can  one  teach  others  to  paint 
animals,  or  flowers,  or  landscapes,  or  portraits  if 
he  himself  has  never  put  pencil  or  brush  to  can- 
vas 1  How  can  a  man  teach  others  the  art  of  sav- 
ing souls,  who  has  himself  never  practised  that 
art  ?  Our  contention  is  that  in  a  theological  school 
built  up  for  the  express  purpose  of  fulfilling  the 
great  commission,  all  of  its  professors  should 
have,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  the  experience 
of  preachers  and  pastors;  at  least  they  should 
know  by  having  done  it,  and  by  doing  it  while 
engaged  in  teaching,  what  it  is  to  seek  and  save 
the  lost. 

The  introduction  of  men  into  our  theological 
faculties  who  are  utterly  destitute  of  all  pastoral 
experience,  powerfully  tends  to  supplant  the  mo- 
tive which  should  have  absolute  control  in  all  the- 
ological teaching.  Scholarship  instead  of  evan- 
gelism, becomes,  imperceptibly  it  may  be,  but 
really,  the  supreme  end  in  teaching.  And  so  it 
comes  to  pass  that  those  students  are  most  valued, 
most  generously  helped,  and  most  honored,  who 
excel  in  some  special  line  of  investigation,  even 
though  their  specialty  be  quite  remote  from  their 
chosen  life-work,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel. 
Under  such  a  spur,  students  become  more  ambi- 
tious to  secure  the  scholastic  degree  of  Ph.  D. 
than  to  become  workmen  in  the  ministry,  who 
need  not  to  be  ashamed,  rightly  dividing  the  word 

[  192  ] 


Theological  Schools 

of  truth.  Many  of  them  become  specialists  in 
study  and  soon  leave  the  work  of  saving  the  lost 
that  they  may  devote  themselves  exclusively  to 
that  of  scientific  and  scholarly  attainment.  And 
the  result  too  often  is  that  they  leave  the  throne 
of  the  pulpit  for  some  chair  of  linguistics, 
or  philosophy,  or  history,  in  some  academy,  or 
college,  or  university. 

In  saying  this,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  dispar- 
age in  the  slightest  degree  the  broadest,  pro- 
foundest  scholarship;  unquestionably  the  more 
the  preacher  has  of  it,  other  things  being  equal, 
the  more  effective  he  will  be.  We  are  sure  that 
neither  God  nor  sensible  men  take  any  delight  in 
ignorance.  But  it  is  not  the  object  of  the  genuine 
theological  school  to  make  its  students  profound 
specialists  in  any  department  of  thought,— to  pro- 
duce that  somewhat  indefinite  creature  called  a 
scholar ;  but  rather  to  train  men  for  the  specific 
work  of  preaching  the  gospel  and  saving  the 
lost. 

But  having  organized  our  theological  schools 
for  the  express  purpose  of  securing  as  soon  as 
possible  the  salvation  of  all  men,  can  we  ade- 
quately equip  and  endow  them!  They  should 
have  buildings  and  libraries  and  a  suitable  num- 
ber of  professors,  who  will  be  expected  to  devote 
all  their  time  and  energies  to  the  task  of  training 
the  students  for  the  matchless  work  to  which  God 
has  called  them.  Most  of  these  teachers  are  poor 
and  must  receive  just  compensation  for  their  toil. 
And  we  are  commanded  **not  to  muzzle  the  ox 

[193] 


Science  and  Prayer 

that  treadeth  out  the  corn.''  So  our  schools 
should  have  a  sufficient  income  from  invested 
funds  to  sustain  these  instructors  not  in  luxury, 
but,  at  least,  in  decency. 

How  can  adequate  endowments  be  secured?  If 
all  in  our  churches  were  fully  alive  to  the  great 
fact  that  their  supreme  work  on  earth  is  to  seek 
and  save  the  lost,  then  our  thrifty  and  rich  lay- 
men would  see  in  our  theological  schools  such  a 
mighty  agency  for  carrying  out  the  great  commis- 
sion, that  they  would  clamor  for  the  privilege  of 
suitably  endowing  them.  But  alas!  up  to  the 
present  hour,  only  a  few,  compared  with  the 
great  body  of  believers,  have  ever  apprehended 
the  fact  that  the  only  adequate  reason  for  the 
existence  of  any  Christian  church  is  the  seeking 
and  saving  of  the  lost.  Not  apprehending  this, 
hosts  of  Christian  men  are  accumulating  wealth 
simply  for  themselves  and  their  households.  It 
has  never  dawned  upon  them  that  they  are  under 
God  merely  stewards  of  the  wealth  which  they 
have  gathered ;  that  both  they  and  it  belong  to  the 
Lord ;  that  he  rightly  claims  it  together  with  their 
talent  and  energies  for  the  work  of  rescuing  men 
from  sin  and  death.  But  will  they  always  fail  to 
see  that  the  responsibility  of  saving  the  lost  rests 
just  as  squarely  on  the  laity  as  on  the  ministry, 
on  the  pew  as  on  the  pulpit?  And  these  business 
men  in  the  churches,  what  great  talent  they  pos- 
sess! Many  of  them  are  thrifty  farmers,  or 
builders,  or  merchants.  They  are  prominent 
among  those  who  originate  vast  enterprises  and 

[194] 


Theological  Schools 

successfully  carry  them  out.  They  rib  the  con- 
tinent with  steel  rails ;  they  thread  the  face  of  all 
civilized  lands  with  telegraph  wires;  under  the 
mighty  oceans  they  stretch  their  electric  cables; 
their  ships  furrow  all  waters  around  the  whole 
globe;  but  all  this  talent  belongs  to  Christ,  and 
should  be  concentrated  on  the  great  work  which 
he  has  called  us  to  do,  making  disciples  of  all  the 
nations. 

And  we  believe  that  the  time  will  come  when 
Christian  business  men  of  all  denominations  will 
see  their  duty  and  do  it.  There  will  then  be  an- 
other ecumenical  council  somewhat  different  from 
that  recently  held  in  New  York.  In  addition  to 
Christian  pastors,  missionaries,  and  missionary 
secretaries,  there  will  be  a  far  greater  host  of 
Christian  laymen,  many  of  them  having  great 
wealth.  And  they  will  say  to  each  other,  ''The 
Lord  has  left  us  a  mighty  work  to  do.  He  has 
commanded  us  to  seek  and  save  the  lost  of  all  na- 
tions ;  it  is  passing  strange  that  we  have  not  be- 
fore this  seen  our  duty ;  now  let  us  set  about  the 
doing  of  it.  We  have  the  requisite  money,  and  we 
will  use  it  for  this  great  purpose.  Our  ships  shall 
not  only  carry  merchandise,  but  truth  and  salva- 
tion to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  Our  ocean  cables 
shall  not  only  report  the  price  of  corn  and  cotton 
and  stocks  on  foreign  bourses,  the  twists  of  diplo- 
macy at  the  national  capitals,  the  carnage  of  bat- 
tle-fields, and  the  desolation  wrought  by  famine 
and  pestilence,  but  also  the  conflicts  and  triumphs 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ  in  every  part  of  the  earth.'' 

[195] 


Science  and  Prayer 

That  great  council  will  be  irenic.  Denomina- 
tional differences  will  be  utilized  simply  in  help- 
ing map  out  the  work  to  be  done.  One  part  of 
the  earth  will  be  given  to  one  denomination  to 
evangelize,  another  part  to  another,  until  the 
whole  globe  shall  be  marked  out  into  districts, 
each  of  which  will  be  invaded  and  conquered  by 
some  one  of  the  divisions  of  God's  sacramental 
host.  Then,  this  council  will  see  as  never  before 
the  need  of  very  many  scholarly,  devoted,  conse- 
crated missionaries,  and  they  will  wisely  conclude 
to  endow  amply  our  theological  schools  as  the 
most  important  of  all  the  means  by  which  this 
great  demand  can  be  met.  Till  then  we  must  look 
up  enough  men  and  women,  who,  in  some  meas- 
ure, at  least,  understand  what  the  great  work  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  on  earth  is,  and  get  them  to 
endow,  as  well  as  may  be,  these  theological 
schools.  And  just  in  proportion  as  the  great  mass 
of  Christ's  followers  see  and  feel  that  their  chief 
work  is  to  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  will  be 
the  ease  with  which  these  endowments  can  be 
secured. 

Now  what  is  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  mat- 
ter! First,  a  theological  school  planted,  endowed, 
and  conducted  under  the  sway  of  a  motive  so  lofty 
and  mighty  as  this,  would  attract  to  its  halls  a 
large  number  of  students.  The  highest,  noblest 
manhood  is  always  most  aroused  and  attracted 
by  work  which  is  difficult,  but  at  the  same  time 
immeasurably  important.  True  men  are  seldom 
responsive  to  any  call  to  do  what  is  easy  and  of 

[  196  ] 


Theological  Schools 

little  worth.  But  if  our  liberties  are  brought  into 
jeopardy,  if  our  hearths  and  homes  are  threat- 
ened with  destruction,  then  all  true  men  rush  to 
the  rescue  regardless  of  personal  ease  or  safety. 
If  our  fellow  men  are  in  peril  from  flood,  or  fire,  or 
fell  disease,  men  and  women  without  a  thought 
of  the  hardships  and  imminent  dangers  that  con- 
front them,  hasten  to  bring  relief.  And  so  when 
it  shall  be  known  that  a  theological  school  has  been 
planted  and  is  being  administered  to  fit  men  solely 
for  the  difficult,  heroic  work  of  saving  the  lost 
throughout  the  whole  world,  a  work  which  brings 
men  into  fellowship  with  God  and  into  conformity 
with  his  character,  a  work  which  not  only  regen- 
erates individuals,  but  on  the  principles  of  right- 
eousness transforms  society  and  reconstructs 
laws  and  governments,  a  work  that  is  the  only 
reasonable  hope  of  all  that  is  purest  and  most 
beneficent  in  civilization,  young  men  in  all  the 
churches  of  Christ  will  be  aroused  as  by  the  trump 
of  God,  and  will  say,  ''There  we  must  go,  that  we 
may  be  fitted  to  do  this  great  thing.'' 

Second,  this  imperial  motive  will  also  secure  on 
the  part  of  the  students  thus  drawn  together 
faithfulness  and  enthusiasm  in  study.  They  will 
gladly  subject  themselves  to  the  most  rigorous 
discipline,  since,  thereby  they  will  be  better  fitted 
to  save  men,  to  enter  more  efficiently  into  the 
very  work  to  which  Christ  with  such  complete 
self-sacrifice  consecrated  his  earthly  ministry; 
this,  if  anything,  will  secure  untiring  devotion  to 
study. 

[197] 


Science  and  Prayer 

Third,  such  a  theological  school  will  become  a 
center  of  evangelizing  power.  That  to  which  the 
congregated  students  consecrate  their  lives,  will, 
as  opportunity  presents  itself,  be  at  once  begun. 
The  saving  of  men  will  not  be  a  mere  theory, 
floating  in  the  brain  during  the  period  devoted  to 
theological  study,  but,  from  the  start,  theory  and 
practice  will  go  hand  in  hand.  So  far  as  time  will 
permit,  without  trenching  on  the  necessary  work 
of  the  study  and  class-room,  these  students  will 
put  forth  earnest  effort  to  seek  and  save  the  lost. 
The  truth  discovered  and  intellectually  grasped, 
will  at  once  be  applied  and  tested  in  the  work  of 
saving  souls.  Just  as  the  student  of  Chemistry 
masters  its  principles  and  theories  by  experiment- 
ing in  the  laboratory,  so  the  student  of  theology 
will  be  helped  to  the  mastery  of  its  truths  by 
applying  them  in  the  real  work  of  saving 
men.  The  great  joy  which  flows  from  the  ac- 
quisition of  new  truth,  will  be  supplemented 
by  the  greater  joy  which  flows  from  saving  the 
lost. 

From  this  it  is  clear  that  such  labor  will  not  in- 
terfere with  rapidity  and  thoroughness  of  acqui- 
sition. The  one  will  rather  stimulate  and  help  the 
other.  The  practical  test  of  truth,  by  its  applica- 
tion to  real  life,  will  give  the  student  a  clearer, 
firmer  grasp  of  it. 

And  if  any  student  should  at  times  fall  into 
doubt  concerning  the  truth  or  efficiency  of  the 
gospel,  nothing  so  quickly  and  completely  sweeps 
away  the  gathering  clouds  of  unbelief  as  witness- 

[  198  ] 


Theological  Schools 

ing    the    transformation    of   men,    through    the 
proclamation  of  the  truth. 

Moreover,  truth  acquired  both  by  study  and  by 
testing  its  power  in  real  life  gives  to  the  student 
steadiness  and  firmness  of  faith.  He  knows  what 
he  Believes.  The  truth  to  him  is  not  some  in- 
tangible theological  theory  or  speculation,  but 
part  and  parcel  of  his  experience  and  life.  And 
when  he  speaks,  he  utters  what  he  has  seen  and 
felt.  To  him  the  doctrines  of  God's  saving  grace 
are  as  solid  as  a  mountain  of  granite ;  and  when 
he  preaches  them  you  hear  in  every  sentence  the 
accent  of  conviction. 

And  to  crown  all,  the  students  of  such  a  school, 
already,  as  time  and  opportunity  permit,  engaged 
in  the  work  of  saving  the  lost,  will  never  need  to 
be  stirred  up  from  without  to  labor  on  the  foreign 
mission  field,  but  they  will  always  be  ready  to 
toil  among,  and  for  the  salvation  of,  any  people 
on  the  face  of  the  earth.  Whenever  the  call  comes 
from  any  place,  at  home  or  abroad,  each  one  with 
glad  heart  will  say,   ''Here   am  I,   Lord,   send 


me." 


Fourth,  this  mighty  motive  which  we  have  con- 
sidered would  vastly  augment  the  power  of  the 
professors  of  the  theological  school.  How  dili- 
gent they  would  become,  how  earnest  and  pains- 
taking in  study,  how  faithful  and  patient  in  teach- 
ing, if,  in  every  hour  of  their  lives,  they  felt  that 
they  were  doing  all  their  work  in  order  to  secure 
as  soon  as  possible  the  salvation  of  the  lost  for 
whom  their  Master  died. 

[199] 


Science  and  Prayer 

And  this  motive  would  not  only  lead  them 
gladly  to  give  to  their  work  every  power  of  body 
and  soul,  but  it  would  also  modify  and  shape  their 
teaching.  Under  its  influence  they  would  be  con- 
strained to  present  to  the  students  under  their 
care,  and  to  lead  them  to  investigate  and  acquire 
just  what  will  help  them  most  in  saving  lost  men 
and  in  training  them  for  the  broadest  and  most 
effective  service.  They  would  be  led  to  discard  in 
teaching  that  which  is  merely  speculative,  how- 
ever interesting  in  and  of  itself  it  might  be. 
Without  undervaluing  tentative  speculation,  they 
would  in  all  probability  be  forced  to  the  conclu- 
sion, that  many  truths  of  the  gospel  have  been 
already  over-discussed;  that  its  great  saving 
truths  are  established  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt,  and  that  they  should  spend  their 
time  and  strength  in  teaching  the  everlasting 
verities  of  God's  word,  so  necessary  to  fit  the 
young  men  of  their  classes  to  do  the  work  of  mak- 
ing disciples  of  the  lost.  At  all  events,  the  mighty 
motive  that  controlled  Christ  in  all  that  he  said 
and  did,  would  be  the  great  decisive  factor  as  to 
what  they  should  teach,  and  as  to  the  emphasis 
that  they  should  give  in  teaching  to  this  or  to  that. 

How  much  time  some  theological  teachers  have 
given  to  the  speculation  as  to  whether  there  may 
be  a  second  probation,  as  to  whether  men  who  die 
in  impenitence  may  have  another  chance  to  re- 
ceive or  reject  salvation  on  the  other  side  of  the 
grave.  Of  course  the  whole  sweep  of  Scripture 
is  utterly  against  such  a  view.     There  are  only 

[200] 


Theological  Schools 

two  or  three  vague  hints  in  the  Bible  out  of  which 
such  a  doctrine  might  be  tortured.  How  shadowy 
is  the  basis  of  such  a  speculation,  resting  as  it 
does  on  the  most  perverse  atomistic  interpreta- 
tion. And  how  can  such  hypothetical,  unsubstan- 
tial teaching  concerning  the  future  life  fit  men  to 
seek  and  save  the  lost  now  and  here? 

This  indeed  may  be  an  extreme  case.  But  if 
theological  professors,  in  all  their  teaching,  have 
alone  in  view  the  fitting  of  men  to  save  the  lost, 
very  likely  a  multitude  of  speculations,  on  a  large 
variety  of  topics,  on  which  much  precious  time 
has  been  worse  than  squandered,  will  be  altogether 
laid  aside  and  forgotten. 

Moreover,  controlled  by  the  supreme  motive  of 
saving  the  lost,  theological  professors  will  not 
hesitate  to  take  right  hold  of  this  practical  work 
along  with  their  students.  Not  of  course  to  the 
extent  of  interfering  with  that  study,  which  is  so 
imperative,  if  they  are  to  be  strong,  successful 
teachers;  but  some  practical  labor  of  this  kind 
will  keep  them  constantly  in  mind  of  the  great 
work  that  the  Master  demands  alike  of  teachers 
and  pupils,  and  will  make  the  gospel  which  they 
unfold  to  their  students  a  greater  power  within 
their  own  souls.  I  take  it  for  granted,  that  no 
man,  be  he  layman,  or  minister,  or  theological 
professor,  can  teach  the  gospel  only  so  far  forth 
as  he  does  the  gospel.  Christ  said  that  we  must 
not  only  hear  his  sayings,  but  do  them. 

How  inspiring  would  be  the  sight  of  a  theo- 
logical school  animated  with,  and  unified  by,  this 

[201] 


Science  and  Prayer 

great  truth,  that  Christ  *s  disciples  have  only  one 
reason  for  living  and  acting,  and  that  is  to  save 
the  lost.  For  this  great  end  the  professors  would 
study,  and  teach,  and  preach  and  pray;  for  the 
same  great  end  the  students  would  read,  and  in- 
vestigate, and  eagerly  listen  in  the  lecture-room, 
and  also  pray;  and  all,  both  teachers  and  stu- 
dents, so  far  as  their  strength  should  permit, 
would  join  hands  in  the  practical  work  of  seeking 
and  saving  the  lost.  How  blessed  and  fruitful 
such  fellowship  in  study  and  toil  would  be, — 
fellowship  uniting  both  teachers  and  students  in 
one  sympathetic  brotherhood,  and  all  with  their 
Lord  and  Master.  So  that  the  great  purpose  that 
brought  him  into  the  world,  the  salvation  of  our 
race,  would  be  the  supreme  purpose  of  all. 


[202] 


THE    USE    OF    THE   SCRIPTURES   IN 
THEOLOGY 


THE  USE  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES  IN 
THEOLOGY 

By  the  late  William  Newton  Claeke,  D.  D., 

Professor  of  Christian  Theology  in 

Colgate  University 

Sometime  during  the  year  1905,  the  late  Wil- 
liam Newton  Clarke,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Christian 
Theology  in  Colgate  University,  delivered  the 
Nathaniel  Taylor  Lectures,  before  the  Divinity 
School  of  Yale  University,  on  *^The  Use  of  the 
Scriptures  in  Theology.''  His  thoughts  on  this 
important  and  deeply  interesting  topic  were 
urged  upon  the  attention  of  young  men  about  to 
go  forth  from  their  student  life  to  preach  the 
gospel.  He  divided  his  subject  into  four  parts, 
*^The  Problem,''  ^^The  Principle,"  '^Results 
Negative,"  and  ^* Results  Positive."  To  each 
part  he  gave  one  discourse.  These  four  dis- 
courses he  subsequently  published  in  a  small  vol- 
ume, which,  for  a  theological  work,  has  been 
widely  read.  Among  others,  I  perused  it  and  laid 
it  aside  with  no  purpose  of  criticising  it  publicly. 
But  some  of  my  brethren  in  Boston  urged  me  to 
present  my  views  of  it  before  the  Baptist  Min- 
isters' Conference  of  that  city,  and  simply  out  of 
a  spirit  of  accommodation,  I  consented  so  to  do. 

[205] 


Science  and  Prayer 

I  was  reluctant  in  undertaking  the  task,  not  be- 
cause I  did  not  consider  it  important,  but  be- 
cause I  felt  that  some  one  else  could  perform  it 
far  better  than  I.  But  yielding  to  the  importunity 
of  those  whom  I  very  highly  esteem,  I  presented 
my  criticism  of  these  popular  lectures.  In  a  more 
elaborate  form  I  delivered  my  criticism  before 
the  Baptist  Pastors*  Conference  at  Providence, 
the  Rochester  Theological  Seminary,  and  the 
Baptist  Pastors'  Conference  of  Chicago. 

My  personal  relations  with  the  author  of  this 
book  have  been  exceedingly  pleasant,  and  his 
Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark  has  been  a 
favorite  of  mine.  So  I  approached  the  criticism 
of  these  lectures  strongly  prejudiced  in  favor  of 
their  author. 

There  are  many  utterances  in  this  book  which 
Christian  men  generally  will  endorse.  He  pro- 
poses to  make  theology  Christocentric.  This  by 
most,  if  not  by  all,  thinkers  will  certainly  be  ap- 
proved. So  much  of  Jesus'  teaching  as  he  pre- 
sents, all  that  he  says  in  behalf  of  thorough, 
honest  investigation  of  the  Scriptures,  his  ardent 
advocacy  of  setting  forth  fearlessly  the  real 
meaning  of  every  part  of  the  Bible,  will  unques- 
tionably be  cordially  endorsed  by  every  lover  of 
biblical  truth. 

But  much  that  he  urges,  very  many,  as  devoted 
to  the  truth  as  the  author  claims  to  be,  will  hesi- 
tate to  receive,  will  in  all  probability  reject.  At 
all  events  even  his  main  contention  that  the  say- 
ings of  Christ  concerning  God  are  the  crown  of 

[206] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

revelation,  around  which  all  the  thought  of  his 
book  is  built,  to  my  own  mind  is  untenable. 

Before  formally  stating  this  position,  we  must 
have  clearly  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  author 
wholly  rejects  the  doctrine  of  inspiration.  To 
be  sure  he  quotes  some  Scripture,  but  never  as 
inspired.  *' Theories  of  inspiration,''  he  says, 
''have  lately  been  passing  out  of  sight.''  The 
word  inspiration,  he  declares,  is  ''ancient,  am- 
biguous" and  "confusing."  The  "idea  of  in- 
spiration" is  "ancient";  as  though  a  doctrine 
may  not  be  both  ancient  and  true.  And  in  this  he 
does  not  inveigh  against  some  unreasonable 
theory  of  inspiration,  but  against  the  fact  of  in- 
spiration. We  make  this  statement  not  for  the 
purpose  of  combatting  the  author's  position  in 
reference  to  inspiration,  but  that  we  may  fully 
understand  his  point  of  view;  that  we  may  get 
to  his  headquarters,  where  we  can  view  things 
with  his  eyes  and  justly  appreciate  his  reasoning. 

Now,  untrammeled  by  any  notion  of  inspira- 
tion, he  lays  down  the  principle  around  which  all 
of  his  discussion  gathers;  but  before  he  enun- 
ciates it,  he  eulogistically  apologizes  for  it.  He 
says  that  it  is  "clear  and  sound."  And  before  he 
finishes  this  lecture  (p.  82)  he  says,  "Now  for  a 
moment  I  must  sing  the  praises  of  the  principle 
that  I  have  been  trying  to  set  forth."  We  have 
a  right  to  expect  that  a  principle  so  magnified, 
both  before  and  after  its  announcement,  should 
be  new  in  theology.  But  is  our  expectation  real- 
ized?   Hear  the  author.    "The  principle  is,  that 

[207] 


Science  and  Prayer 

the  Christian  element  in  the  Scriptures  is  the  in- 
dispensable and  formative  element  in  Christian 
theology,  and  is  the  only  element  in  the  Scriptures 
which  Christian  theology  is  either  required  or 
permitted  to  receive  as  contributing  to  its 
substance. ' ' 

Now  the  author  even  ventures  to  think  that 
this  statement  has  a  self-evident  sound.  He  did 
not  make  a  very  bold  venture.  That  principle 
has  been  accepted  and  acted  upon  by  all  Christian 
theologians  since  the  Apostolic  era.  The  tug  of 
war  comes  only  when  the  task  is  undertaken  of 
finding  out  what  is  the  Christian  element  in  the 
Bible.  This  the  author  apprehends.  *  *  Here, ' '  he 
says,  *  *  questions  throng. ' ' 

But  he  seems  to  us  to  fail  in  the  just  application 
of  his  ** clear  and  sound''  principle.  He  properly 
begins  his  discussion  of  it  with  the  teaching  of 
Christ  concerning  God  and  man  and  their  rela- 
tions to  each  other,  and  declares  that  Christ,  not 
only  by  what  he  says  reveals  God,  but  that  he  is 
himself  the  revelation  of  God.  What  Christ  says 
about  God,  in  statements  more  or  less  full,  he 
several  times  repeats.  Take  a  somewhat  diffuse, 
but  eloquent  expression  of  it  in  his  second  lecture, 
(p.  58),  Christ  *' assumed  in  God  the  reality  of  all 
that  men  need  to  find  in  him.  A  God  for  men  to 
love,  to  trust,  and  to  adore,  a  God  who  hates  evil 
and  desires  to  save  men  from  its  control,  a  God 
of  free,  forgiving  grace,  a  God  to  whom  men  are 
precious  and  who  seeks  them  in  love,  that  he 
may  make  them  what  they  ought  to  be,  a  God, 

[208] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

indeed,  whose  holy  love  is  expressed  in  the  love 
of  Christ  himself,  which  goes  to  death  in  order 
that  it  may  save,— such  a  God  Jesus  has 
manifested  and  commended  to  our  faith  and 
affection. ' ' 

This,  Dr.  Clarke  teaches,  is  the  core  of  Chris- 
tian theology.  Whatever  in  the  Bible,  in  the  Old 
Testament  or  the  New  Testament  agrees  with  this 
is  Christian  and  should  find  place  in  Christian 
theology;  whatever  disagrees  with  it  should  be 
ruled  out. 

But  has  not  the  author  made  the  basis  of  his 
Christian  theology  too  narrow?  Why  build  alone 
on  what  Christ  taught  concerning  God  and  his 
attitude  towards  man?  Why  should  not  a  Chris- 
tian theologian  take  up  into  his  theology  all  that 
Christ  taught!  Can  he  fail  to  do  so,  if  he  abides 
by  the  principle  that  the  author  has  laid  down 
with  such  a  flourish  of  trumpets?  Was  there  no 
law  in  Christ's  teaching?  He  said  that  he  came 
not  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to  fill  it  out.  He  did 
not  set  it  aside,  but  gave  to  it  a  new  interpreta- 
tion, showing  how  broad  it  is ;  that  it  lays  hold 
of,  and  measures,  not  only  outward  conduct,  but 
the  thoughts  and  affections  of  the  soul.  He  de- 
clared to  his  disciples  that  unless  their  righteous- 
ness exceeded  that  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees 
they  could  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God.  In  a  word  we  find  in  his  teaching  the 
distilled  essence  of  God's  law. 

But  Dr.  Clarke  has  not  included  in  his  basis  of 
Christian  theology  Christ's  teaching  of  the  law. 

[  209  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

Why  not?  Are  we  to  receive  some  of  his  teach- 
ings and  to  ignore  or  reject  others?  Did  Christ 
teach  what  is  not  Christian?  That  would  be  the 
absurdity  of  absurdities.  Dr.  Clarke  says  (p.  86), 
*^  whatever  is  in  unison  with  the  mind  of  Christ 
may  enter'*  into  Christian  theology.  And  again, 
**As  for  law,  the  idea  of  obligation  which  it  en- 
shrines is  perfectly  Christian,  just  as  it  is  per- 
fectly natural  and  external.  *'  And  yet  he  does 
not  put  it  in  with  those  teachings  of  Christ  from 
which  all  Christian  theology  flows. 

Nor  in  ascertaining  the  mind  of  Christ  does  he 
make  any  reference  to  his  numerous  utterances 
in  which  he  expressed  his  hot  indignation  against 
sin,  especially  against  hypocrisy  and  oppression. 
For  example,  have  Christ's  seven  woes  in  the 
twenty-third  chapter  of  Matthew  no  place  in 
Christian  theology?  Is  there  in  Christ  no  wrath 
against  sin?  Is  he  the  revelation  of  a  milk-and- 
water  God? 

In  fact  our  author  does  not  once  allude  to 
Christ 's  teachings  concerning  sin ;  teachings  most 
vital  and  profound,  which  stand  apart  from  all 
that  Jew  or  Gentile  taught  in  reference  to  it; 
which  placed  sin  neither  in  the  outward  act,  as 
did  the  Pharisee,  nor  in  the  intellect,  as  did  the 
Greek,  but  in  the  affections,  way  down  in  the 
centre  of  man's  being.  Out  of  the  heart,  Christ 
said,  proceed  evil  thoughts.  Why  omit  such 
teachings  from  Christian  theology? 

Moreover,  Dr.  Clarke  makes  no  reference  to 
what  Christ  taught  concerning  his  own  person, 

[210] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

the  necessity  of  his  death,  the  judgment,  and  his 
resurrection.  Have  these  great  truths  no  place 
in  a  theology,  which  flows  directly  from  Christ's 
teaching!  If  we  are  to  have  a  theology  on  such 
a  basis,  let  us  put  into  that  basis  all  of  Christ's 
authentic  utterances.  Dr.  Clarke  has  made  the 
basis  very  much  too  narrow  by  ignoring  in  his 
criterion  a  large  part  of  what  Christ  taught. 

Then  on  this  too  narrow  basis,  made  up  simply 
of  what  Christ  taught  concerning  God,  the  author 
starts  out  in  quest  of  the  Christian  element  in 
the  rest  of  the  Scriptures.  But  how  shall  we  know 
that  element!  Why,  nothing  is  easier;  just  ''look 
at  it  and  discern  the  quality''  in  it,  just  as  you 
discern  ''the  blue  in  the  sky." 

This  seems  to  be  simple  and  charming.  This 
might  perhaps  captivate  some  of  the  callow  and 
unthinking.  Of  course  if  we  already  know  a 
truth,  we  recognize  it  wherever  we  find  it.  If  that 
truth  is  expressed  by  Paul  and  we  find  it  also  in 
Genesis  or  Isaiah  of  course  we  identify  it.  If  we 
learn  from  Christ  that  we  ought  to  forgive  our 
enemies,  and  read  that  David  spared  Saul,  who 
was  endeavoring  to  take  his  life,  we  say  at  once 
that  is  the  forgiveness  of  an  enemy  incarnated. 
But  by  such  a  process  we  can  never  discover  any 
new  truth.  The  truth  that  we  hold  we  may  find  in 
Scriptures  where  we  had  never  before  discerned 
it,  but  it  is  the  same  truth  that  we  already  have 
in  possession. 

To  be  sure  we  know  some  truths  intuitively; 
not  that  we  discover  them  intuitively;  discovery 

[  211  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

is  one  thing,  intuitive  apprehension  is  another. 
But  when  certain  truths  are  taught  us  or  are  dis- 
covered by  us,  they  are  so  fitted  to  our  intellectual 
and  moral  natures,  that  we  receive  them  as  veri- 
ties without  proof  or  process  of  reasoning.  But 
this  is  not  what  our  author  is  talking  about.  He 
starts  with  certain  truths  made  known  by  Christ 
concerning  God  and  man  to  find  in  the  Bible 
truth  of  like  quality.  ^  *  Look  at  it, ' '  he  says,  ^  ^  and 
discern  the  quality. ''  You  ascertain  it  by  com- 
parison of  qualities.  Now  if  in  this  quest  our 
author  had  taken  along  with  him,  so  far  as  he 
was  able,  all  the  teachings  of  Christ,  he  would 
have  found  in  the  Bible  much  more  of  the  Chris- 
tian element  than  he  has  apparently  discovered. 

But  starting  with  the  truth  concerning  God 
outlined  by  our  author,  let  us  now  ask  who  by 
looking  at  it,  and  discerning  its  quality,  shall 
ascertain  what  is  the  Christian  element  in  the 
Bible?  You,  as  an  individual!  or  I?  Is  each 
Christian  believer  to  determine  the  Christian 
element  for  himself  alone,  without  respect  to 
others  ?  As  no  two  would  fully  agree,  if  each  one 
wrought  out  a  system  of  theology,  should  we  not 
have  a  bewildering  medley  of  theologies?  The 
author  declares  that  on  his  ground,  we  should 
have  a  standard  of  theology;  what  we  determine 
to  be  Christian  in  the  Bible  would  constitute  that 
standard.  But  what  a  confusing  variety  of 
standards  there  would  be !  Christ  himself  taught 
some  things  that  Dr.  Clarke  rejects.  Then  Paul 
discerned  in  the  Old  Testament  some  things  that 

[212] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

he  believed  to  be  Christian,  that  our  author 
squarely  repudiates.  Then  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Christians  looked  into  the  Scriptures  and  pointed 
out  what  they  believed  to  be  Christian ;  so  did  the 
reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century  in  Germany 
and  England;  so  have  the  great  theologians  and 
preachers  of  the  past  century  both  in  Europe 
and  America,  but  our  author  disagrees  with  them 
all. 

Where  there  is  such  disagreement  as  to  what  is 
the  Christian  element  in  the  Bible,  is  there  any 
use  in  searching  for  it?  Most  assuredly  there  is. 
But  the  value  of  the  search  comes  from  a  com- 
bination of  the  results  reached  by  all.  The  solid- 
arity of  the  race  is  certainly  no  more  true  than 
that  of  Christian  believers.  The  great  apostle 
called  them  the  body  of  Christ.  What  believers 
as  a  whole,  believers  of  the  past  centuries  and  be- 
lievers of  the  present  day  substantially  agree 
upon  as  Christian  in  the  Bible  we  may  pretty 
safely  trust.  And  this  does  not  shut  us  up  in  any 
cast-iron  system.  The  spirit  of  free  inquiry  is 
abroad.  New  light  breaks  in  on  the  meaning  of 
the  word  of  God;  and  all  real  advances  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  Bible  will  be  taken  up  into  the 
universal  consciousness  of  Christendom  and  will 
find  healthful  and  fruitful  expression.  Just  as 
the  people  of  the  United  States  receive,  largely 
unwittingly,  the  ethics  of  the  New  Testament  as 
common  law,  so  what  is  Christian  in  the  Bible  be- 
lievers as  a  body  discern  and  receive.  If  we  are 
to  appeal  to  the  Christian  consciousness  to  ascer- 

[  213  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

tain  what  is  the  Christian  element  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, let  us  not  appeal  alone  to  our  own  subjec- 
tive consciousness,  nor  to  the  subjective  con- 
sciousness of  some  school  of  theologians,  but  to 
the  universal  Christian  consciousness;  if  we  do 
this  and  abide  by  the  result,  we  shall  not  probably 
go  far  astray. 

But  this  disturbs  our  author.  He  looks  on  the 
great  mass  of  believers  as  in  almost  hopeless 
error  in  reference  to  the  Bible.  There  are  only  an 
elect  few  that  really  understand  it.  *^ There  is,'' 
he  says,  **a  popular  religious  view  of  the  Bible,'' 
and  *  *  a  well  accepted  scholarly  view, ' '  but,  to  use 
his  own  words,  *^  between  these  two  there  is  in- 
deed an  appalling  difference,  which  nevertheless 
must  some  day  be  overcome.  The  problem  is  upon 


us." 


What  appals  him  ought,  on  his  own  principle, 
to  cheer  him.  It  shows  him  that  the  great  mass 
of  Christian  believers  are  already  in  agreement 
as  to  what  is  Christian  in  the  Bible;  and  with 
them  stand  many  of  the  profoundest  biblical 
scholars;  while  a  few  scholars  have  views  of  the 
Bible  somewhat  different  from  the  vast  mass  of 
their  brethren.  Between  the  multitude  and  the 
few  let  brotherly  love  continue;  but  if  we  are  to 
determine  what  is  Christian  in  the  Bible  by  just 
looking  at  it  and  seeing  its  quality,  why  should 
our  author  be  appalled  because  hosts  of  believers, 
making,  in  strict  accordance  with  his  own  prin- 
ciple, the  search  for  this  Christian  element  in 
the  Scriptures,  have  found  much  more  of  it  than 

[214] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

he  has  discovered!  Are  the  discoveries  of  the  few 
to  be  preferred  to  the  discoveries  of  the  many? 
Is  the  testimony  of  the  many  to  be  invalidated 
by  that  of  a  self-selected  few?  It  is  a  pity 
that  a  man  should  stand  appalled  at  the  out- 
come of  his  own  method  of  getting  at  the 
truth. 

But  since,  in  his  judgment,  the  multitude  can- 
not be  trusted  in  this  quest  for  the  Christian  ele- 
ment in  the  Scriptures,  he  kindly  leads  the  way. 
He  starts  out  with  a  criterion.  It  is  what  Christ 
teaches  about  God  and  man  and  their  relations 
to  one  another.  This  he  declares  is  the  crown 
and  glory  of  revelation.  In  his  search  he  first 
turns  backward  to  the  Old  Testament  to  find  what 
may  be  Christian  there.  Whatever  he  finds  in 
those  more  ancient  records  that  has  the  quality 
of  the  very  crown  of  revelation  is  Christian; 
where  that  quality  does  not  appear,  there  may  be 
suggestive  history,  but  nothing  more.  Is  this  a 
fair  procedure?  Does  our  author  sufficiently 
keep  in  mind  that  the  Bible  is  a  progressive  rev- 
elation of  God?  That  real  Christian  truth  may 
have  been  for  a  long  period  but  partially  re- 
vealed? Yet,  what  was  revealed  was  truly  Chris- 
tian? If  a  man  should  now  take  the  most  per- 
fectly constructed  steam-engine,  and  going  back- 
ward in  time  should  say,  ''Whatever  agrees  with 
this  is  a  steam-engine,  and  what  does  not  may 
belong  to  history,  but  is  not  a  steam-engine, ' '  we 
should  think  him  quite  unfair  and  illogical.  Any 
improvement  in  the  engine  which  he  now  regards 

[215] 


Science  and  Prayer 

as  a  criterion  would  in  turn  set  it  aside  as  no  en- 
gine at  all.  But  the  crude  engine  at  the  beginning 
was  a  real  engine;  it  was  never  set  aside;  it  has 
been  improved  from  time  to  time  till  it  has 
reached  its  present  state  of  perfection.  So,  far 
back  in  the  past  God  was  imperfectly  but  really 
revealed  to  men ;  and  as  time  swept  on  the  revela- 
tion of  his  character  became  more  and  more 
complete  until  we  reach  the  highest  revelation  of 
Him  in  Jesus  Christ. 

That  Dr.  Clarke  did  not  keep  in  mind  as  he 
should  have  done  the  progress  of  doctrine,  as  it 
is  presented  to  us  in  the  Bible,  is  clear  from  the 
whole  sweep  of  his  discussion,  and  also  from  the 
phrases  which  he  employs.  He  says  in  his  last 
lecture,  that  in  early  times  God  was  not  '^rightly 
known^'  (p.  132),  or  *^ rightly  pictured'^;  where 
fully  known,  or  correctly  pictured,  would  seem  to 
be  preferable.  He  says  again  that  we  must  set 
forth  ^*the  right  God.''  Such  expressions  show 
very  plainly  that  the  development  of  doctrine  finds 
scant  place  in  our  author 's  consciousness. 

But  having  pointed  out  what  seems  to  us  a 
serious  defect  in  these  lectures,  let  us  follow  the 
author,  so  far  as  time  will  permit,  while  he  brings 
the  Old  Testament  to  the  touchstone  of  his  crite- 
rion. But  at  the  very  start  he  abandons  his 
chosen  method  and  declares  that  what  Genesis 
says  about  *Hhe  manner  in  which  the  world  and 
man  were  created''  and  ** concerning  the  origin 
of  human  sin"  is  not  historical,  and  so  has 
nothing  to  do  with  Christian  theology. 

[216] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

This  is  a  strange  reason  for  rejecting  a  section 
of  Scripture  as  a  source  of  theology.    While  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  has  an  historical  setting, 
it  in  itself  is  not  a  relation  of  history,  nevertheless 
it  contains   considerable  material  for  theology. 
The  eighth  chapter  of  Romans  is  not  historical, 
i.  e.  in  it  no  history  is  related,  but  it  is  a  rich  the- 
ological mine.    Does  Dr.  Clarke  propose  to  rend 
in  pieces  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis,  to  tear  out 
of  the  web  of  this  section  of  the  Scriptures  the 
account  of  the  creation  of  the  world  and  of  man 
and  of  the  origin  of  sin  and  leave  the  rest  of  it? 
This  would  be  a  bold  procedure  even  for  the  most 
destructive  critic.    However  one  would  naturally 
think  from  his  silence  on  this  point  that  he  sum- 
marily rules  out  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  as 
contributing  nothing  to  theology.     ^*In  the  be- 
ginning God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth," 
does  not  that  belong  to  Christian  theology?    '*So 
God  created  man  in  his  own  image,''  does  not 
that  belong  to  Christian  theology,  and  does  it  not 
belong  to  the  ''manner''  in  which  God  created 
man?    The  seed  of  the  woman  ''shall  bruise  thy 
head  (the  serpent's  head)  and  thou  shalt  bruise 
his  heel."     Does  not  that  belong  to   Christian 
theology?    Man  disobeyed  God  and  was  punished 
for  it.    Is  that  no  contribution  to  Christian  the- 
ology?    In  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Matthew 
Christ  quotes  words  from  the  first,  second,  and 
fifth  chapters  of  Genesis,  which  he  regarded  as 
the  very  foundation  of  monogamy.    Has  that  no 
place  in  Christian  theology?     (Gen.  1 :  27 ;  2 :  24 ; 

[217] 


Science  and  Prayer 

5:2).  ^'And  Enoch  walked  with  God;  and  he 
was  not  for  God  took  him.''  That  seems  to  har- 
monize with  Christian  theology. 

As  to  the  historical  character  of  these  first 
chapters  of  Genesis  advanced  critics  differ.  The 
fact  of  the  creation  of  the  universe,  of  man  in 
God's  image,  of  creation  in  different  periods  is 
evidently  scientific  and  historical.  The  account 
of  man's  sinning  seems  to  be  the  rub  with  our 
author.  He  gives  a  separate  paragraph  to  it. 
But  because  we  have  the  story  of  it  in  symbolical 
language,  does  that  show  it  to  be  unhistorical  ? 
Much  of  the  history  of  Assyria  and  Egypt  is 
written  in  symbols.  Paul  explicitly  refers  to 
man's  creation  in  his  first  epistle  to  Timothy 
and  treats  it  as  history,  also  in  Romans  as 
a  fact  well  accredited,  and  in  his  first  epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  he  speaks  of  ^Hhe  first 
man,  Adam."  It  is  quite  possible  that  he  knew 
as  much  about  the  subject  as  some  modern 
critics. 

But  Dr.  Clarke  says  that  so  far  as  he  knows, 
Christ  never  referred  to  ^^the  origin  of  human 
sin"  (p.  90).  We  have  no  reference  in  his  re- 
corded utterances  to  the  passage  in  Genesis  on 
which  we  have  commented;  but  he  does  refer,  it 
seems  to  me,  to  the  fact  that  man  was  once  in  a 
different  condition  from  that  in  which  he  is  now. 
He  spoke  of  him  as  lost.  He  emphasized  that. 
He  wrote  three  great  parables  to  set  forth  the  sad 
fact,  the  lost  sheep,  the  lost  piece  of  money,  and 
the  lost  son ;  and  he  declared  that  the  great  object 

[218] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

for  which  he  came  into  the  world  was  **to  seek 
and  to  save  that  which  was  losf  (Lk.  19:10). 
Man  once  in  a  happier  state  wandered  from  it 
and  got  lost.  Then,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
Christ  does  quote  words  from  these  unhistorical 
chapters. 

But  why  is  our  author,  together  with  men  of 
his  school  of  thought,  so  anxious  to  get  rid  of  the 
account  of  the  origin  of  sin  I  Would  the  admission 
of  it  vitiate  theology?  If  sin  is  not  eternal  it 
began  sometime  and  somewhere.  It  is  universal 
among  men  now.  But  those  who  object  to  the 
account  of  its  origin  as  given  in  the  third  chapter 
of  Genesis,  do  so  because  they  believe  that  ac- 
count to  be  unscientific,  contradictory  to  the  law 
of  evolution.  Now,  without  discussing  at  all  the 
doctrine  of  evolution,  it  seems  to  me  that  they 
unwittingly  misrepresent  it.  They  regard  the 
process  of  evolution  when  once  begun  as  going 
steadily  on  and  upward  in  an  unbroken  line. 
Scientists  do  not  so  understand  it.  As  they  trace 
its  workings  in  the  physical  universe  they  discover 
that  it  is  irregular  in  its  onward  movement ;  that 
there  has  been  not  only  progression  but  also  at 
times  startling  retrogression.  If  under  the  law 
of  evolution  there  has  been  in  the  physical  uni- 
verse such  retrogression,  why  not  in  the  sphere 
of  the  moral  or  spiritual?  The  doctrine  of  the 
fall  of  man,  in  my  judgment,  in  no  way  conflicts 
with  the  best  established  deliverances  of  science 
on  evolution.  That  which  is  both  Scriptural  and 
scientific,  and  pertains  to  the  very  heart  of  Chris- 

[219] 


Science  and  Prayer 

tian  theology  should  not  be  turned  out  of  doors 
by  a  Christian  theologian. 

Having,  to  his  own  satisfaction,  disposed  of  the 
first  chapters  of  Genesis,  Dr.  Clarke  finds  in  the 
rest  of  the  Old  Testament  considerable  material 
that  should  have  place  in  Christian  theology. 
Much  found  in  the  messages  of  the  prophets,  the 
best  of  the  Psalms,  and  *  illuminating  history,*' 
presenting  the  struggle  **  toward  true  knowledge 
of  God, ' '  all  make  valuable  contributions  to  Chris- 
tian theology.  To  be  sure  Dr.  Clarke  makes  in 
reference  to  this  no  very  definite  statements;  he 
does  not  clearly  draw  the  line  between  what  in  the 
prophets  and  the  Psalms  he  regards  as  Christian 
and  what  as  non- Christian;  but  by  his  general 
statements  he  leaves  upon  my  mind  the  im- 
pression that,  in  his  judgment,  the  Christian 
element  in  the  Old  Testament  is  by  no  means 
insignificant. 

But  now,  not  departing  from  his  headquarters, 
we  wonder  that  he  is  not  more  specific.  We  re- 
fresh our  minds  with  what  he  has  put  into  his 
criterion,  teachings  concerning  God  and  man  and 
their  relations  to  one  another,  which  he  calls  the 
crown  of  revelation.  Whatever  is  kin  to  this  is 
Christian.  As  one  drags  a  magnet  through  sand 
and  iron-filings  in  order  to  gather  out  the  latter 
from  their  baser  surroundings,  so  with  the  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  that  are  the  crown  of  revela- 
tion, he  sweeps  through  the  Old  Testament,  that 
he  may  gather  out  all  that  has  affinity  to  them. 
By  that  process  he  should  have  found  something 

[220] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

more  specific;  he  might  have  discovered  in  the 
Old  Testament  every  thought  contained  in  those 
sayings  of  Christ  that  he  styles  '^the  crown  of 
revelation.'' 

Here  of  course  the  stress  is  upon  the  attitude 
of  God  towards  men;  and  the  Old  Testament  de- 
clares the  mercy  and  compassion  of  God  towards 
men  with  an  emphasis  and  iteration  that  cannot 
be  matched  in  the  New;*  and  forgiveness  for  sin 
is  set  forth  with  such  richness  and  fulness  that 
the  Christian  instinctively  turns  to  the  Old  Scrip- 
tures that  his  assurance  of  God's  forgiveness  may 
be  reinforced.  In  substantiation  of  our  claim  let 
us  cite  a  few  declarations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. I  think  that  our  author  cannot  justly  ob- 
ject to  this,  even  though  he  is  opposed  to  the 
proof-text  method,  since  every  now  and  then  he 
quotes  a  text,  when  he  thinks  that  it  will  serve 
him  a  good  turn ;  and  even  his  criterion,  by  which 
he  professes  to  measure  all  theology,  is  made  up 
from  the  sayings  of  Christ.  So  let  us,  by  spe- 
cific declarations  found  in  the  Old  Testament, 
see  in  what  attitude  God  was  declared  to  stand 
towards  men,  hundreds  of  years  before  Christ 
came. 

In  the  very  heart  of  the  decalogue,  while  God 
is  represented  as  ''visiting  the  iniquity  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and 
fourth  generations  of  them  that  hate"  him,  it  is 
also  declared  that  he  shows  mercy  unto  thousands 
(of  generations)  of  them  that  love  him  and  keep 

*  Schultz  's  Old  Testament  Theology,  Goettengen. 

[221] 


Science  and  Prayer 

his  commandments.  On  Sinai,  where  the  law  was 
given,  the  Lord  passed  before  Moses  and  pro- 
claimed, ^^The  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and 
gracious,  longsuffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness 
and  truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiv- 
ing iniquity  and  transgression  and  sin^'  (Ex. 
34:6-7). 

During  the  time  of  Zedekiah,  amid  widespread 
corruption,  a  Bible  historian  declares  that  the 
Lord  God  sent  his  messengers  unto  his  rebellious 
people,  ^^  rising  up  betimes  and  sending,  because 
he  had  compassion  on  his  people,  and  on  his 
dwelling  place''  (2  Chron.  36: 15).  In  many  pas- 
sages in  the  prophets  God  is  represented  in  the 
same  way;  and  the  Psalms,  which  are  the  expres- 
sion of  individual  experience,  abound  with  decla- 
rations of  God's  love  and  compassion  to  men. 
He  pities  them  as  a  father  does  his  children 
(103:13),  is  more  tender  than  an  earthly  father 
and  mother;  *^when  my  father  and  my  mother 
forsake  me,  then  the  Lord  will  take  me  up"  (27: 
10).  The  Lord  delights  in  mercy,  he  is  gracious 
and  full  of  compassion  (145:7),  his  paths  are 
mercy  and  truth  (25 :  10),  unto  him  mercy  belongs 
(62:12),  he  is  plenteous  in  mercy  (86:5),  his 
mercy  is  everlasting  (100:5),  and  it  is  great 
above  the  heavens  (108:4).  These  are  simply 
representative  utterances.  Is  it  not  clear  that  the 
lawgiver,  and  the  Prophets  and  Psalmists  of 
Israel  knew  the  Lord  that  Jesus  proclaimed  to 
men?  Also  the  relation  between  Jehovah  and  his 
people  is  the  same  as  that  set  forth  by  Christ; 

[222] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

*^I  shall  be  their  God  and  they  shall  be  my 
people '^  is  the  prophetic  word. 

And  as  to  the  duty  of  men  to  God  and  to  one 
another,  Jesus  drew  the  Godward  precept  from 
Deuteronomy  and  the  manward  from  Leviticus. 
^^Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 
might  ^^  (Deut.  6:5),  and  *^thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself  (Lev.  19:18).  ^*0n  these 
two  commandments,'^  said  Christ,  *^hang  all  the 
law  and  the  prophets''  (Matt.  22:40). 

Even  from  this  cursory  survey,  it  is  evident  to 
my  own  mind,  that  Jesus'  teaching  concerning 
God  and  man  is  not  the  crown  of  revelation.  His 
words  on  these  subjects  contain  nothing  that  had 
not  before  been  announced,  nothing  that  is  not 
found  in  the  Old  Testament.  To  this  we  shall 
return  again. 

In  the  meantime  we  will  still  further  follow  our 
author  in  his  search  for  material  which,  in  his 
judgment,  has  rightfully  a  place  in  Christian  the- 
ology. He  turns  to  the  New  Testament;  here  as 
in  the  Old  Testament  he  makes  some  eliminations. 
In  these  eliminations  he  surprises  us  by  beginning 
with  the  words  of  Christ.  All  the  words  of 
Christ,  whose  utterances  concerning  God  and  man 
are  considered  the  crown  of  revelation,  are  not 
fit  material  for  Christian  theology.  The  author 
admits  that  in  the  24th  of  Matthew,  Christ  is  rep- 
resented as  teaching  his  second  coming.  But  the 
whole  notion  of  the  second  coming  is  Jewish;  so 
either  Christ  unwittingly  fell  into  the  popular 

[223] 


Science  and  Prayer 

notion  concerning  it,  or  declarations  are  attrib- 
uted to  him  that  he  never  made.  The  first  sup- 
position is  abhorrent,  and  the  last  is  a  too 
common  makeshift  to  get  rid  of  some  supposed 
difficulty. 

While  we  believe  the  author's  genesis  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  second  coming  of  Christ  to  be  a 
figment  of  the  imagination,  he  ought  to  have  ex- 
plained why  a  notion  is  necessarily  untrue  simply 
because  it  is  Jewish.  Is  nothing  that  is  Jewish 
true? 

As  to  the  doctrine  of  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  our  author 's  contention  seems  to  be,  Christ 
has  not  come  according  to  apostolic  expectation 
and  therefore  he  will  not;  and  if  he  should  come 
again  it  would  be  a  retrograde,  rather  than  an  ad- 
vanced, movement.  That  Christ  will  not  come 
again,  no  man  can  declare,  since  no  man  knows; 
what  seems  delay  to  us  very  likely  is  not  so  to 
Him  with  whom  a  thousand  years  are  as  one  day. 
And  as  to  his  coming  being  contrary  to  the  pres- 
ent development  of  Christianity,  we  should  not 
forget  how  the  personal  appearance  of  Christ 
subdued  and  transformed  Saul  of  Tarsus,  and 
that  the  last  of  the  apostles  wrote,  ^*When  he 
shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him;  for  we  shall 
see  him  as  he  is." 

But  our  author  not  only  rejects  the  doctrine  of 
the  second  coming  of  Christ  as  foreign  to  Chris- 
tian theology,  but  also  all  ideas  in  PauPs  epistles 
which  are  expressed  in  terms  of  Jewish  sacrifice 
or  in  forms  of  Roman  law.    He  also  rules  out  for 

[224] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

the  flimsiest  reasons,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
and  quite  ignores  the  Eevelation.  Time  will  not 
permit  us  to  go  into  a  discussion  of  these  things. 
While  these  rejected  Scriptures  are  not  neces- 
sarily antagonistic  to  what  Christ  taught  con- 
cerning God,  they  have  so  little  in  common  with 
it,  that  the  author  from  his  point  of  view,  must 
necessarily  reject  them.  He  thinks  them  to  be 
on  a  lower  plane.  That  is  an  hallucination ;  they 
are  on  a  higher  plane. 

But  in  his  eliminating  process  two  things  de- 
mand our  special  attention.  Like  all  of  his  class 
of  interpreters  he  wishes  to  efface  the  representa- 
tion of  God  as  a  King.  He  grants  of  course  that 
the  Scriptures  so  present  him  to  us,  and  that 
even  Christ  is  so  characterized  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. But  while  this  was  fitting  enough  in  past 
ages,  it  is  no  longer  so.  It  suggests  arbitrariness 
in  God,  makes  one  think  of  him  as  tyrannical. 
Even  if  we  recall  to  mind  that  *'the  King  eternal, 
immortal,  invisible^'  is  absolutely  wise  and  just, 
and  in  love  so  identifies  himself  with  his  subjects 
that  he  regards  whatever  is  done  to  them  as  done 
to  himself,  still  we  cannot  free  the  name  from  its 
bad  associations.  So  this  name  so  often  in  the 
past  given  to  God  or  God  in  Christ  must  be  rele- 
gated to  everlasting  oblivion.  How  does  Dr. 
Clarke  attempt  to  sweep  away  so  inveterate  a 
mode  of  speech!  His  method  of  doing  it  is  fas- 
cinating on  account  of  its  simplicity.  In  spite  of 
the  viciousness  of  the  proof-text  method,  he 
quotes  Jesus*  words  to  the  Samaritan  woman; 

[225] 


Science  and  Prayer 

*^God  is  a  Spirit;  and  they  that  worship  him 
must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth;'*  and 
then  tells  us  that  by  this  declaration  Jesus  swept 
away  all  anthropomorphisms;  and  of  course  the 
representation  of  God  as  a  King  went  with  the 
rest. 

Now  that  seems  to  be  neatly  done;  the  only 
trouble  with  it  is  it  is  not  true.  We  cannot  think 
of  personality  at  all  except  in  the  terms  of  per- 
sonality with  which  we  are  familiar;  on  that  ac- 
count we  can  no  more  get  rid  of  anthropomor- 
phisms than  we  can  get  rid  of  ourselves.  Christ 
never  intended  that  we  should.  He  said,  when 
you  pray  say,  **Our  Father.'*  Over  and  over 
again  he  called  God  his  Father.  Is  not  that  an- 
thropomorphism? Does  Dr.  Clarke  refuse  to  say, 
^^The  Lord  is  my  shepherd*'?  but  to  call  God  a 
shepherd  is  rank  anthropomorphism.  He  who 
taught  his  disciples  to  say  **Our  Father"  also 
taught  them  to  pray,  ^  ^  Thy  kingdom  come. ' '  We 
can't  have  a  kingdom  without  a  king.  In  the  most 
solemn  hour  of  Jesus'  earthly  career  he  declared 
that  he  had  a  kingdom  and  acknowledged  to 
Pilate  that  he  was  a  king.  Just  the  anthropo- 
morphism that  seems  to  trouble  our  author. 
After  his  resurrection  he  announced  that  all  au- 
thority is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 
That  looks  like  sovereignty  and  suggests  a  throne. 

But  the  second  thing  in  this  part  of  our  dis- 
cussion to  claim  our  attention  for  a  moment  is 
still  more  weighty  and  serious.  In  his  criterion, 
made  up  of  what  Jesus  taught  about  God,  he  finds 

[226] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

no  mention  made  of  sacrifice.  So  in  the  applica- 
tion of  this  criterion  he  gets  rid  of  all  propitiation. 

If  he  means  that  he  has  gotten  rid  of  the 
heathenish  idea  that  an  angry  God  is  appeased  by 
bloody  sacrifice,  all  intelligent  Christian  men  are 
with  him  the  world  over;  but  if  he  means  that 
Christ  did  not  offer  himself  a  sacrifice  to  God  on 
our  behalf,  we  are  compelled  to  take  issue  with 
him.  Evidently  there  was  something  in  God  that 
demanded  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  While  God's 
law  is,  ^^The  soul  that  sins  shall  die,"  the  sinless 
One  died;  as  the  apostle  says,  ^^The  just  for  the 
unjust. ' '  He  who  demanded  the  sacrifice  made  it. 
God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  him- 
self. The  death  of  the  spotless  Christ  for  our 
sins,  both  met  the  demand  in  God  for  the  punish- 
ment of  sin,  and  set  forth  before  the  universe  the 
exceeding  sinfulness  of  sin. 

Our  author  seems  to  reverse  the  Scriptural  idea 
of  sacrifice.  In  the  Bible  sacrifice  is  always 
spoken  of  as  primarily  offered  unto  God.  The 
sacrifices  of  Israel  were  so  offered.  So  the  sac- 
rifice of  Christ  is  represented  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
says,  **who  (Christ)  through  an  eternal  Spirit 
offered  himself  without  spot  to  God.''  Sacrifices 
of  praise  were  offered  to  God.  Even  a  gift  to 
Paul  from  the  Church  at  Philippi  is  called  by 
him  *  ^  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well-pleasing  to  God. ' ' 
Such  is  the  universal  use  of  the  word  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. But  our  author,  together  with  the  school 
to  which  he  belongs,  uses  the  word  to  designate 

[  227  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

exclusively  something  done  at  cost  to  ourselves 
for  our  fellowmen.  The  thought  thus  expressed 
is  thoroughly  Christian,  but  not  the  main  idea  of 
Scriptural  sacrifice.  And  when  our  author  gets 
rid  of  propitiation  he  seems  to  mean  that  he  gets 
rid  of  the  Godward  reach  of  sacrifice;  that  is,  in 
his  judgment,  sacrifice  to  God  has  apparently  no 
place  in  Christian  theology. 

To  substantiate  his  position  he  declares  that 
Christ  in  his  teaching  never  referred  to  sacrifice 
in  that  sense.  Well,  at  all  events,  his  forerunner 
did.  Pointing  out  Jesus  to  his  disciples  he  ex- 
claimed, **  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world. '*  And  Jesus  con- 
firmed these  words  of  John  the  Baptist.  He  was 
showing  his  disciples  that  true  greatness  in  his 
kingdom  is  obtained  only  through  service,  and 
declared  that  ^^the  Son  of  Man  also  came  not  to 
be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give 
his  life  a  ransom  for  many. ' '  Dr.  Clarke,  unfold- 
ing the  meaning  of  these  words  in  his  Commentary 
on  Mark,  says : 

"A  ransom  is  the  price  paid  for  the  release  of  prisoners 
or  captives.  The  word  for,  in  the  sense  of  "instead  of"  (a 
ransom  for  many)  is  entirely  appropriate,  since  ransom  is 
naturally  conceived  of  as  taking  the  place  of  the  persons  who 
are  delivered  by  it,  or  serving  instead  of  them.  An  idea  of 
vicariousness,  or  action  in  the  place  of  others,  resides  in  this 
word,  as  well  as  in  the  word  ransom  itself.  The  phrase  falls 
in  with  the  other  language  of  Scripture,  which  represents  the 
giving  up  of  his  life  as  the  indispensable  means  for  the  deliv- 
erance of  men  from  sin;  and  of  this  he  was  thinking  when 
he  spoke  of  the  supreme  act  of  service,  the  giving  of  his  life 
a  ransom  for  many.  In  order  to  minister  thus  to  men  he  came 
into  the  world." 

[228] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

Again  in  his  comment  on  these  words  (Mk.  14: 
24),  ''This  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant  which  is 
shed  for  many/^  he  declares,  Christ  ''says  that 
he  sheds  his  own  blood  as  covenant  blood  to  bring 
God  and  man  into  the  actual  union  and  fellowship 
promised  in  the  New  Covenant.  His  offering  of 
himself  is  to  be  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God 
as  the  blood  sprinkled  on  the  altar  was,  and  it  is 
to  be  accepted  by  men,  through  faith,  as  the  means 
by  which  they  are  brought  into  "the  eternal  cov- 
enant'' of  genuine  fellowship  with  God/'  .  .  . 
"His  offering  of  himself  reaches  Godward  and 
man  ward. ' ' 

This  is  so  obviously  the  teaching  of  Christ  that 
it  is  pitiable  to  think  that  the  author  now  avers 
that  Jesus  never  referred  to  his  offering  himself 
a  sacrifice  to  God. 

But  we  now  come  to  our  final  criticism.  We 
are  told  that  in  constructing  a  Christian  theology 
we  are  not  strictly  confined  to  the  Christian  ele- 
ment in  the  Bible,  but  whatever  truly  flows  out  of 
that  element,  whatever  congruous  inference  may 
be  made  from  it  belongs  to  the  very  substance  of 
theology.  The  theologian  is  to  set  before  himself 
"that  glorious  body  of  living  truth  which  Jesus 
has  given  us,"  and  he  is  invited  to  contribute  "if 
he  is  able  to  the  positive  contents  of  theology" 
(p.  86).  Perhaps  he  can  do  this.  "He  may  be 
able  to  rule  out,  with  divine  authority,  something 
that  has  remained  to  vex  theology  by  its  incon- 
gruous character. ' '  This  may  be  possible.  There 
is  no  a  priori  objection  to  any  man's  adding  some- 

[229] 


Science  and  Prayer 

thing  to  the  very  substance  of  theology.  But  who 
has  ever  added  to  theology  an  iota  of  truth 
not  found  in  the  Bible?  Bring  on  your  man, 
and  let  him  bring  on  the  addition  that  he  has 
made! 

But  we  should  care  little  for  what  the  author 
has  said  on  this  score,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that 
he  represents  the  apostles  simply  as  ordinary 
theologians,  making  deductions  from  Christ's 
teachings.  While  what  they  said  is  not  *  identical 
in  expression  or  in  thought  (p.  136)  with  him, 
it  is  a  development  from  him.  When  John  wrote, 
^^God  is  love,''  it  was  ^^a  conclusion  drawn"  from 
the  effect  of  Christ's  revelation  (p.  148) ;  and 
much  more  of  like  import. 

In  all  this,  he  does  not,  it  sems  to  me,  deal  with 
the  apostles  in  the  scientific  spirit,  in  strict  ac- 
cordance with  the  facts.  When  he  considers  the 
weight  or  authority  of  their  utterances  as  com- 
pared with  those  of  Christ,  he  makes  no  account 
of  the  fact  that  they  like  their  Lord  were  led  by 
the  Spirit,  and  that  their  apprehension  of  the 
truth  by  the  illumination  of  the  Spirit,  was  simply 
the  carrying  out  of  Christ's  purpose  concerning 
them.  He  announced  to  the  apostles,  *  ^  I  have  yet 
many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear 
them  now.  Howbeit  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth."  For 
that  reason,  whether  certain  men  think  it  to  be 
sufficient  or  not,  many  of  the  ablest  theologians 
have  received  the  deliverances  of  the  apostles  as 
equally  authoritative  with  those  of  the  Master. 

[  230  ] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

But  our  author  insists  that  there  is  a  Pauline, 
and  a  Johanine  gospel,  and  that  while  each  was 
a  ''development''  from  Christ's  teaching,  each 
differed  from  it;  that  is,  did  not  in  all  respects 
truthfully  represent  it,  or  was  in  some  respects 
contradictory  to  it.  But  can  any  man  show  that 
the  apostles  in  presenting  the  truths  of  the  gospel 
ever  parted  company  with  their  Lord!  Each  in- 
deed had  his  own  style  of  utterance,  but  was  as 
true  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ  as  is  the  needle  to 
the  pole.  He  differed  from  his  Master  only  in 
presenting  some  new  aspects  of  truth  into  which 
the  Spirit  led  him,  and  which  the  disciples  were 
not  fitted  to  receive  from  the  lips  of  their  Lord. 
For  example,  Paul  gave  a  loftier  view  of  mar- 
riage than  Christ  did.  In  his  epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians  (Eph.  5:23-25),  he  glorifies  the  relation  by 
declaring  it  to  be  like  that  which  subsists  between 
Christ  and  the  church.  The  apostles  give  us  a 
grander  view  of  Christ  than  we  find  in  the  gos- 
pels ;  they  present  him  to  us  in  his  glory,  only  a 
glimpse  of  which  during  his  earthly  ministry  was 
caught  on  the  mount  of  transfiguration;  a  glory 
that  does  not  remove  him  from  us,  since  he  comes 
to  us  in  the  Spirit  and  dwells  in  us  as  in  a  temple. 
Though  he  has  passed  into  the  heavens  he  is  still 
touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities.  And 
it  remained  for  him  whom  Jesus  specially  loved 
to  reach  the  grandest  height  in  the  revelation  of 
God,  so  that  he  wrote,  ''God  is  love."— Was  that 
a  conclusion  drawn  from  Christ's  teaching  con- 
cerning the  character  of  God,  as  a  logician  draws 

[231] 


Science  and  Prayer 

a  conclusion  from  certain  established  premises? 
Did  not  rather  this  profoundest  truth  concerning 
God  pour  forth  from  the  depths  of  John's  per- 
sonal experience,  as  he  was  touched  and  illum- 
inated by  the  divine  Spirit? 

But  why  does  our  author  entertain  what  seems 
to  us  to  be  a  low  and  unworthy  view  of  the  apos- 
tles? Chiefly,  I  think,  in  mistaking  what  is  the 
crown  of  revelation.  We  have  already  pointed 
out  that  if  that  crown  is  merely  the  teachings  of 
Christ,  Dr.  Clarke  ought  in  consistency  to  include 
in  it  all  of  Christ 's  utterances.  Making  the  teach- 
ings of  Christ  in  their  totality  the  criterion  of 
what  should  find  place  in  Christian  theology,  the 
scope  and  substance  of  that  theology  would  be  far 
greater  than  is  contemplated  by  the  author.  And 
we  have  also  already  shown  that  what  Christ 
taught  concerning  the  character  of  God  is  found 
in  the  Old  Testament.  So,  important  as  that 
teaching  is,  it  is  evidently  not  the  crown  of  revela- 
tion. Jesus  Christ  himself  is  its  crown.  Not 
what  Christ  said,  but  what  Christ  is  and  what 
Christ  did  is  the  crown  of  revelation.  To  be  sure 
Dr.  Clarke  himself  asserts  that  Christ  is  the  rev- 
elation of  God  to  us,  but  he  makes  little  or  no  use 
of  the  fact  in  determining  what  in  the  Scriptures 
is  Christian.  If  he  had  firmly  held  on  to  that  fact, 
and  added  it  to  his  criterion  for  determining  what 
from  the  Scriptures  should  enter  into  Christian 
theology,  he  would  have  shown  greater  hospital- 
ity to  apostolic  teaching.  He  would  not  have 
treated  so  scantily  and  obscurely  the  death  and 

[232] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

resurrection  and  glorification  of  Christ.  If  he 
had  at  all  properly  estimated  what  Jesus  did  on 
his  cross,  he  would  not  have  so  summarily  dis- 
missed the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  he  would 
not  practically  have  ignored  the  fact  that  we  have 
in  the  cross  the  highest  exhibition  of  God's  right- 
eousness and  love,  and  in  Christ's  resurrection 
the  irrefragable  proof  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God. 
He  is  thereby  declared,  says  Paul,  ^  ^  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  with  power."  It  was  chiefly  with  this 
crown  of  divine  revelation  in  Christ  that  the 
apostles  had  to  do,  not  with  what  Jesus  said 
about  God. 

This  is  clearly  evident  from  the  most  cursory 
examination  of  the  New  Testament.  Even  in  the 
gospels  where  are  recorded  the  matchless  sayings 
of  Jesus,  large  space  is  given  to  his  judicial  trial, 
condemnation,  death,  burial  and  resurrection.  He 
himself  laid  the  emphasis  on  his  death.  Just  be- 
fore Gethsemane  and  the  cross  he  said  to  his 
disciples;  *^ Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except 
a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die  it 
abide th  alone ;  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much 
fruit."  All  that  he  had  said  would  be  fruitless 
without  his  death.  He  gave  to  his  followers  a 
perpetual  memorial,  not  of  his  sayings,  but  of  his 
death.  Whatever  else  they  forgot,  he  wanted 
them  to  remember  thatj  and  to  keep  it  in  remem- 
brance, Paul  said,  ''till  he  come."  The  apostles 
in  their  preaching  did  not  dwell  on  the  sayings  of 
Christ,  but  on  his  death,  resurrection  and  exalta- 
tion at  the  right  hand  of  God.     They  were  ab- 

[233] 


Science  and  Prayer 

sorbed  in  what  Christ  is  and  in  what  Christ 
wrought. 

That  they  were  not  chiefly  occupied  with  the 
utterances  of  Christ  is  also  confirmed  by  the  fact 
that,  as  the  ablest  critics  now  generally  agree, 
Paul's  chief  epistles  were  written  before  the  gos- 
pels. How  largely  by  tradition  the  sayings  of 
Jesus  may  have  found  place  in  his  mind,  we  can- 
not tell ;  but  in  his  writings  he  only  now  and  then 
refers  to  any  of  them;  but  he  dwells  on  Christ's 
death  for  our  sins  and  his  resurrection  and  glory. 
He  probably  never  saw  Christ  except  in  his  glory, 
and  he  proclaimed  the  glorified  one.  What  di- 
rectly flowed  out  of  these  great  facts  he  wrought 
into  his  theology. 

In  accordance  with  this  view,  Dr.  Bernhard 
Weiss  says,  **At  the  basis  of  the  whole  apostolic 
preaching,  lies  the  assumption  that  the  work  of 
Christ  was  by  no  means  completed  during  his 
earthly  life,  that  this  was  rather  the  antecedent 
condition  and  the  beginning  of  a  work  which  will 
be  carried  on  by  the  risen  Christ  through 
means  entirely  new  and  with  all-embracing  suc- 
cess, and  which  will  be  completed  only  in  the 
future.''* 

He  also  says,  '  *  The  Christian  faith  would  have 
remained  just  as  it  is,  and  lost  no  part  of  what  is 
its  deepest  foundation,  had  it  pleased  God  to  leave 
only  the  Apostolic  teaching  as  it  lies  before  us  in 
the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  and  along  with 
the  Gospels,  to  deprive  us  of  all  information  from 

*  Weiss,  The  Life  of  Christ,  vol.  I,  p.  11. 

[234] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

which  we  might  have  wrought  out  for  ourselves 
a  detailed  picture  of  Jesus'  earthly  life.''* 

That  is,  the  apostles  with  the  great  fact  of 
Christ  and  what  he  did,  guided  by  the  Spirit,  un- 
folded therefrom  the  great  essential,  saving 
truths  of  the  gospel.  But  Dr.  Clarke,  thinking 
that  he  has  the  essence  of  revelation  in  what 
Christ  says  about  God,  for  the  most  part  ignores 
the  most  vital,  fundamental  truths  of  the  gospel 
as  set  forth  by  the  apostles. 

These  are  a  few  of  the  many  considerations 
suggested  to  us  as  we  read  this  small  volume  from 
the  pen  of  Dr.  Clarke.  Other  criticisms  enticed 
us,  which,  for  lack  of  time,  we  must  leave  un- 
spoken. But  we  cannot  refrain  from  noticing  in 
closing. 

First,  that  the  book  is  a  singular  compound  of 
subjectivism  and  objectivism.     The   author  de- 
clares that  the  Scriptures  are  the  basis  of  theol- 
ogy, but  since  only  a  part  of  them  can  be  included 
in  that  basis,  and  what  shall  be  admitted  rests 
upon  the  subjective  approval  of  each  theologian, 
it  is  clear  that  the  basis  is  uncertain  and  shifty. 
It  may  at  any  moment  be  enlarged  or  curtailed. 
The  historical  character  of  the  gospel  becomes  of 
little  or  no  account.     The  preponderating  and 
shaping  force  of  this  theology  is  undeniably  sub- 
jective.    Just  as  the  spider  spins  its  gossamer 
thread  from  its  own  bowels,  so  a  theologian  of 
this  stamp,  in  the  main,  spins  his  theology  out  of 
his  own  inner  consciousness.     But  the  spinning 

*  Weiss,  The  Life  of  Christ,  vol.  I,  p.  15. 

[235] 


Science  and  Prayer 

spider  has  one  advantage  over  him,  it  attaches  its 
thread  to  something  solid,  while  he  attaches  his  to 
a  wave  of  the  sea  which  is  driven  by  the  wind  and 
tossed;  the  resultant  theology  must  be  unstable 
in  all  its  parts.  In  fact  with  such  a  theory,  what 
the  writings  of  the  Bible  are,  when  or  by  whom 
composed,  is  of  little  or  no  value.  This  the  author 
declares  in  his  last  lecture.  He  says  (p.  145)  that 
the  Christian  element  ^^  comes  with  power  to 
render  theology  very  largely  independent  of  Bib- 
lical criticism. '^  He  thus  opens  up  a  paradise  to 
lazy  preachers  and  theologians.  Still,  in  his  sec- 
ond lecture,  he  declares  that  his  principle  requires 
the  theologian  to  have  ^'all  knowledge  of  the 
Bible''  (p.  85).  How  he  is  to  have  it  when  very 
largely  delivered  from  the  study  of  biblical  criti- 
cism, does  not  seem  quite  clear  to  the  uninitiated. 
Second,  the  outcome  of  what  our  author  advo- 
cates, as  suggested  by  himself,  is  hardly  alluring. 
In  his  last  lecture  he  once  more  elaborately  sets 
forth  what  Christ  taught  concerning  the  char- 
acter of  God,  and  declares  that  in  this  light 
(p.  139)  the  questions  of  theology  are  solved. 
''What,"  in  this  light,  ''is  the  significance  of 
Man  ?  Man  is  the  beloved  creature  of  such  a  God, 
bearing  his  likeness.  What  is  sin  I  Sin  is  the 
opposite  of  such  a  God,  spoiling  such  a  creature. 
What  is  salvation!  Salvation  is  the  work  of  God 
for  such  a  creature  against  such  an  evil.  How  is 
salvation  accomplished?  If  we  need  to  know,  it 
is  accomplished  as  such  a  God  will  accomplish  it. 
What  is  the  divine  life  in  man?    Life  with  such  a 

[236] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

God,  wrought  by  such  a  God.  What  is  human 
destiny?  It  is  such  as  such  a  God  will  provide 
for  such  a  creature.''  Comment  is  unnecessary. 
For  deft  indefiniteness  where  can  we  find  a  para- 
graph to  match  it? 

Third,  the  downright  dogmatism  of  the  author 
is  noteworthy.  He  seems  to  be  cocksure  in  all  his 
utterances.  He  evidently  cherishes  not  the  slight- 
est misgiving  as  to  the  main  position  which  he 
sets  forth  and  defends.  Even  the  extreme  results 
of  the  higher  criticism,  still  regarded  as  doubtful 
by  many  of  the  critics  themselves,  he  unhesitat- 
ingly receives  as  settled.  His  positiveness  will 
be  apt  to  convince  some  even  when  his  cherished 
views  have  slight  scientific  foundation.  Assur- 
edly offensive  dogmatism  is  confined  to  no  school 
of  thought. 

Fourth,  as  to  the  question  of  authority,  so  much 
discussed  just  now,  his  statements  to  a  reader  like 
myself  are  somewhat  confusing.  He  denies  that  the 
Scriptures  are  authoritative  as  to  theology;  they 
should  not  dictate  but  inspire  theology.  On  this 
he  is  both  clear  and  copious.  But  still  he  declares 
that  *'the  idea  of  obligation  which''  the  law  *' en- 
shrines is  perfectly  Christian."  He  also  declares 
that  in  God  is  the  seat  of  authority,  to  which  all 
will  readily  assent.  What  is  not  fully  clear  is,  if 
to  God  only  belongs  authority,  and  God's  will  and 
character  are  revealed  to  us  in  the  Scriptures, 
why  do  not  the  Scriptures  have  some  sort  of  au- 
thority in  reference  to  theology?  Then  he  asserts 
that  theology  is  based  on  the  Scriptures,  and  that 

[237] 


Science  and  Prayer 

the  theologian  may,  with  divine  authority,  rule 
out  what  vexes  theology;  if  the  theologian  who 
gets  his  theology  from  the  Scriptures  has  divine 
authority  to  rid  theology  of  vexations,  how  is  it 
that  those  Scriptures  are  utterly  without  author- 
ity in  theology?  How  does  the  theologian  have 
divine  authority  and  the  Scriptures  none?  This 
is  puzzling  to  one  on  the  outside. 

Fifth,  the  author  in  his  first  lecture  insists  at 
length  that  theologians,  regarding  the  Scriptures 
as  inspired,  have  treated  the  Bible  as  equal  in  all 
its  parts.  Now  that  is  a  man  of  straw;  there 
never  were  any  such  theologians.  While  many 
of  them  have  held  that  all  the  books  of  the  Bible 
were  written  by  inspired  men,  they  have  never 
regarded  these  books  as  equal  in  content  and  im- 
portance. For  example,  they  have  never  re- 
garded the  Chronicles  as  equal  to  the  gospel  of 
Matthew,  or  Ecclesiastes  as  equal  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans. 

But  in  a  subsequent  lecture,  our  author  de- 
clares that  all  in  the  past  (pp.  70-72),  theologians 
included,  have  esteemed  some  Scriptures  above 
others,  have,  in  fact,  really  acted  according  to  his 
principle  in  preferring  one  Scripture  to  another. 
This  seems  to  me  to  be  unquestionably  true.  But 
how  can  these  two  discordant  representations 
moving  on  a  single  track  in  opposite  directions, 
avoid  a  disastrous  head  collision? 

Sixth,  our  author's  acceptance  of  the  radical 
view  in  reference  to  the  gospel  of  John,  is  at  least 
somewhat  suggestive.     ^^This  gospel,'*  he  says, 

[238] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

''embodies    what     some    great     Christian    has 
thought  concerning  Jesus''  (p.  149).     He  again 
says :  ''Perhaps,  indeed,  it  is  the  work  of   a  later 
spiritual  genius,  who  portrays  Jesus,  and  puts 
words  in  his  mouth  as  he  conceives  him  in  the 
light  of  faith  and  love  and  theological  reflection" 
(p.  148).     This  then  is  the  author's  conception; 
after  the  apostle  John  had  passed  away,  some 
"spiritual  genius"  arose,  who  gave  to  the  world 
by  far  the  grandest  and  loftiest  views  of  Christ 
that  were  ever  uttered;  who  so  vividly  depicted 
scene  after  scene  in  the  gospel  as  to  make  the 
acutest,  ablest  men  of  the  church  believe  him  to 
have  been  an  eyewitness  of  what  he  portrayed; 
who  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  not  only  the  dec- 
laration on  which  the  author  comments,  "God  is 
a  Spirit,"  but  also  of  course  Christ's  entire  con- 
versation with  the  Samaritan  woman,  his  contro- 
versial discourses  with  the  Pharisees  in  the  fifth, 
sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  chapters  of  the  gospel, 
his  farewell  discourse  to  the  disciples  in  the  four- 
teenth, fifteenth  and  sixteenth  chapters,  and  the 
Lord's  great  intercessory  prayer  in  the  seven- 
teenth chapter.    A  "spiritual  genius!"    Did  the 
world  ever  see  or  even  dream  of  the  like!    Yet, 
nobody  since  has  ever  identified  him. 

But  we  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  after, 
through  "theological  reflection,"  he  had  com- 
posed the  discourse  in  the  fourteenth,  fifteenth, 
and  sixteenth  chapters  of  this  gospel  and  the  in- 
tercessory prayer  in  the  seventeenth,  and  put 
them  into  the  mouth  of  Christ,  this  man,  capable 

[239] 


Science  and  Prayer 

of  such  profound  spiritual  insight  and  utterance, 
crowned  his  gospel  with  a  lie.  He  said  that  he 
who  wrote  these  things  was  that  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved,  who  leaned  on  his  breast  at  supper. 
Such  an  explanation  of  the  authorship  of  John's 
gospel  makes  too  great  a  demand  on  credulity 
and  common  sense. 

Seventh,  The  Bible  has  been  assaulted  by  critics 
from  the  time  of  Celsus  till  the  present  hour; 
it  has  often  been  unskillfully  and  foolishly  inter- 
preted by  its  friends;  but  it  has  survived  both 
friends  and  foes  and  keeps  right  on  its  beneficent 
way.  Its  endurance  is  one  pregnant  proof  that 
it  came  from  God.  It  will  outlive  all  the  merely 
theoretical  solutions  and  readjustments  of  our 
time.  All  that  modern  scholarship  discovers  that 
is  true  will  of  course  abide;  all  in  its  criticism 
that  is  not  scientifically  based  will  soon  drop  into 
oblivion.  But  the  Bible  in  spite  of  all  theorizing 
and  crude  discussion  will  survive.  Upon  the  seal 
of  the  French  Bible  Society  is  the  picture  of  a 
Bible  in  the  form  of  an  anvil,  around  which  are 
lying  many  broken  hammers,  and  under  it  is  the 
motto:  **The  Hammers  Break:  The  Anvil  Abides 
Forever.''  The  same  thought  is  put  still  more 
eloquently  by  Peter  (1  Pet.  1:  24) ; 

"All  flesh  is  as  grass, 
And  all  the  glory  thereof  as  the  flower  of  grass. 
The  grass  withereth,  and  the  flower  f adeth : 
But  the  word  of  the  Lord  abideth  forever." 

Then  Peter  tells  us  what  he  means  by  the  word : 
*^And  this  is  the  word  of  good  tidings  which  was 

[240] 


Scriptures  in  Theology 

preached  unto  you/'  He  who  wrote  these  words 
preached  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  What  was  the 
word  of  good  tidings  that  he  proclaimed?  Not 
the  sayings  of  Christ  about  God,  but  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  himself;  Jesus  of  Nazareth  '* approved 
of  God  unto  you  by  mighty  works,  and  wonders 
and  signs'' ;  Jesus  of  Nazareth  crucified  and 
slain;  Jesus  of  Nazareth  raised  from  the  dead; 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  exalted  by  the  right  hand  of 
God;  Jesus  of  Nazareth  pouring  forth  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  men.  This  is  the  center  and  sub- 
stance of  the  word  of  God  that  lives  and  abides 
forever,  the  word  that  must  be  the  warp  and 
woof  of  all  true  Christian  theology. 


[241] 


HOW   TO   DEVELOP   CHRISTIAN 
BENEVOLENCE 


HOW  TO  DEVELOP  CHRISTIAN 
BENEVOLENCE 

It  is  assumed  in  this  topic  that  benevolence,  at 
least  in  germ,  already  exists  in  Christians.  This 
assumption  is  valid.  Even  among  the  heathen, 
where  selfishness  predominates,  benevolence 
manifests  itself  spasmodically.  This  may  be  ac- 
counted for  from  the  fact  that  while  sin  has  de- 
faced, it  has  not  utterly  obliterated,  the  image  of 
God  in  man.  Hence  we  have,  even  in  pagans, 
still  some  faint  sporadic  reflections  of  the  divine 
benevolence.  In  the  unconverted  of  Christian 
lands  these  manifestations  are  still  more  fre- 
quent. For  while  they  do  not  possess  the  spirit 
of  Christ,  they  have  been  lifted  up  by  the  general 
influence  of  Christianity,  and  have  been  uncon- 
sciously moulded  by  its  precepts.  Hence  they 
frequently  manifest  by  their  acts  of  charity  and 
by  their  gifts,  its  benevolence.  But  if  this  be  true 
of  the  heathen,  and  of  the  unregenerate  in  com- 
munities nominally  Christian,  it  is  clear  that 
those  in  whom  the  image  of  God  has  been  re- 
traced by  the  divine  Spirit,  who  have  been  filled, 
even  partially,  with  the  spirit  of  Christ,  possess, 
at  least,  the  beginnings  of  his  benevolence.  An 
avaricious  Christian  is  simply  a  contradiction  of 
terms.  The  divine  life  begins  in  giving  ourselves 
and  all  that  we  have  to  Christ;  the  development 

[  245  ] 


Science  and  Prayer 

of  it  can  be  secured  only  by  forgetting  self,  and 
giving  time  and  talent  and  money  for  the  good  of 
our  fellow  men,  and  the  glory  of  God.  And  what- 
ever a  man's  experience  or  **frames''  of  mind 
may  have  been,  if  he  has  no  benevolent  impulses, 
he  cannot  be  a  Christian.  But  if  in  every  true 
believer  the  benevolence  of  Christ  has  been  im- 
planted, like  all  other  Christian  graces  it  needs  to 
be  unfolded.  How  can  such  development,  so 
vastly  important  to  Christian  character,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  to  all  our  enterprises  of  benevo- 
lence on  the  other,  be  secured? 

First,  by  the  general  development  of  Christian 
character.  While  the  graces  of  the  believer  are 
separable  as  objects  of  thought,  they  are,  like 
buds  on  a  tree,  the  manifestation  of  one  indivis- 
ible life  within.  When  one  is  quickened,  all  are 
quickened.  If,  therefore,  we  would  unfold  any 
special  grace,  we  must  stimulate  and  develop  the 
life  which  underlies  and  feeds  the  whole.  Just  as 
a  physician,  who  desires  to  bring  into  healthful 
action  any  organ  of  the  body  which  has  become 
torpid,  tones  up  the  whole  system,  so,  if  we  wish 
to  bring  into  vigorous  exercise  Christian  benevo- 
lence, we  must  aim  primarily  to  perfect  the  fel- 
lowship of  believers  with  Christ.  Filled,  through 
such  fellowship,  with  his  life  and  his  spirit,  the 
entire  Christian  character  will  be  invigorated  and 
unfolded.  Then  the  believer  will  find  it  easy  to 
pray,  and  equally  easy,  according  to  his  ability, 
to  give.  In  fact  such  acts  become  the  channels 
through  which  the  divine  life,  pent  up  within, 

[246] 


Christian  Benevolence 

must  flow  out.     Giving  to  help  others   and  to 
glorify  God  is  as  natural  and  agreeable  to  one 
who  has  real  fellowship  with  Christ,  as  breathing 
is  to  our  bodies.    Hence  it  is  that  genuine  revivals 
of   religion   pay   church   debts,   inaugurate  new 
mission  enterprises,  and  put  new  life  and  power 
into  the  old.     Covetousness  in  professors  of  re- 
ligion is  as  sure  a  sign  of  the  decline  or  want 
of  piety  as  prayerlessness.     If  then  we  would 
develop   Christian  benevolence,  it  must  be   our 
constant  aim  to   promote   in  all   our   churches, 
genuine  revivals  of  religion,  and  we  must  give 
ourselves  no  rest  till  we  see  the  churches  mani- 
festly  swayed  and  controlled  by  the   spirit  of 
Christ.     A  soul  when  first  brought  into  union 
with  Christ  possesses,  in  a  measure,  his  benevo- 
lence.   The  more  perfect  that  union  becomes,  the 
more  expansive  will  be  the  benevolence  which 
flows  forth  from  such  fellowship  with  the  Lord. 

In  the  second  place.  Christian  benevolence  can- 
not be  adequately  developed  without  much  special 
instruction  on  the  duty  of  giving  money  to  aid 
all  important  Christian  enterprises.  Such  in- 
struction is  absolutely  demanded  in  reference  to 
other  Christian  duties.  All  concede  the  import- 
ance of  instructing  the  churches  in  such  duties  as 
prayer,  exhortation,  honesty,  and  the  observance 
of  the  Sabbath.  If  without  line  upon  line,  pre- 
cept upon  precept,  such  duties  will  not  be  ade- 
quately understood  and  faithfully  performed,  we 
cannot  reasonably  expect  that  the  duty  of  giving 
will  be  without  like  full  and  persistent  instruction. 

[247] 


Science  and  Prayer 

But  by  whom  shall  such  instruction  in  benevo- 
lence be  given?  In  some  measure,  by  men  out- 
side of  our  respective  churches,  who,  by  occasional 
addresses,  may  stir  them  up  to  give.  The  reli- 
gious press  should  help  largely  in  this  work.  The 
laymen  of  our  churches,  who  apprehend  and  feel 
the  duty  of  giving,  may  do  much,  by  word  and 
example,  toward  leading  their  brethren  to  devote 
their  wealth  to  Christ;  but  the  responsibility  in 
the  main  unquestionably  rests  on  the  pastors. 
As  their  spiritual  leaders  are,  so  on  the  whole 
will  the  churches  be.  If  a  pastor  in  his  utterances 
manifests  something  of  the  tenderness  and  faith- 
fulness of  Christ,  he  can,  by  persistency  in  in- 
struction and  appeal,  lift  any  church  up  out 
of  penuriousness  into  benevolence.  By  what 
instrumentality  ? 

He  is  called  to  expound  God's  word.  This  is 
his  chief  duty.  He  must,  if  he  fulfils  his  calling, 
preach  both  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. As  he  enforces  the  duties,  that  of  giving 
will  find  its  place.  All  the  warnings  of  God^s 
word  against  covetousness,  and  trust  in  uncer- 
tain riches,  all  that  is  said  concerning  the  right 
use  of  wealth,  should  be  faithfully  set  forth  in  the 
pulpit.  And  since  practical  materialism  shuts 
out  from  many  minds  the  reality  and  importance 
of  spiritual  things,  those  Scriptures  which  pre- 
sent the  transitory  nature  of  material  wealth 
should  be  enforced  with  special  emphasis.  Chris- 
tians who  have  wealth  or  are  bending  all  their 
energies  to  accumulate  it,   should  be  often  re- 

[  248  ] 


Christian  Benevolence 

minded  that  man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone, 
that  all  their  riches  which  do  not  contribute  to 
the  intellectual  and  spiritual  elevation  of  them- 
selves and  others  are  simply  an  unmitigated 
curse;  that  only  what  they  give  for  the  good  of 
their  fellowmen  and  to  glorify  God  is  really 
saved.  Quaint  old  Thomas  Fuller  said  that  Job 
lost  his  sheep,  but  saved  his  wool;  for  with  the 
fleeces  of  his  flocks  he  had  warmed  the  loins  of 
the  poor.  Pastors  must  do  what  they  can  to  teach 
their  churches  this  secret  of  saving  money.  Nor 
must  they  fail  to  set  in  a  strong  light  the  reflex 
influences  of  giving  on  the  character  of  the  giver. 
One  object  of  all  Christian  duty  is  the  unfolding 
of  Christian  character.  Each  duty  has  a  blessing 
at  both  ends  of  it.  It  blesses  both  him  to  whom 
it  is  done,  and  him  who  does  it.  Now  all  the 
duties  of  the  Christian  life  are  necessary  to  se- 
cure, by  their  reflex  influence,  the  complete  and 
symmetrical  development  of  the  believer  *s  char- 
acter. No  duty  can  be  omitted  without  irrepa- 
rable damage.  As  I  passed  along  the  street  I  saw 
a  willow,  green  and  thrifty  on  one  side,  but  de- 
cayed on  the  other.  It  had  no  symmetry  nor 
beauty.  Its  branches  were  twisted,  the  trunk  was 
misshapen ;  the  living  wood,  on  either  side  of  that 
which  was  rotting  away,  was  endeavoring  to 
stretch  itself  over  the  decay,  as  if  in  shame  it 
would  hide  from  view  the  deformity.  This, 
thought  I,  is  a  fitting  symbol  of  those  professors 
of  religion  who  pray  and  read  the  Bible  and  are 
thereby  green  and  thrifty  on  one  side,  but  because 

[249] 


Science  and  Prayer 

they  cannot  be  induced  to  give,  are  struck  with 
the  dry-rot  of  covetousness  on  the  other.  Their 
characters,  instead  of  being  symmetrical  and  at- 
tractive, are  unsightly  and  repulsive.  To  secure 
a  character  fully  rounded  out,  it  is  as  necessary 
for  men  to  give  as  to  pray,  and  to  give  without 
ceasing  as  to  pray  without  ceasing. 

Moreover,  the  duty  of  giving  liberally  should 
be  urged  upon  the  members  of  our  churches,  so 
far  as  it  is  possible,  when  they  are  in  the  first 
stages  of  their  Christian  experience.  They  should 
be  taught,  as  early  as  practicable,  the  whole  round 
of  Christian  duty.  When  they  are  received  into 
the  church  they  should  be  made  to  understand 
that  giving  must  hold  a  prominent  place  among 
their  duties;  that  they  will  be  expected,  accord- 
ing to  their  ability,  to  contribute  cheerfully  to 
sustain  the  services  of  the  church  with  which  they 
unite,  and  to  aid  the  work  of  missions  in  all  of 
its  departments.  To  fix  in  their  minds  at  such  a 
time  the  responsibility  of  giving,  is  comparatively 
an  easy  task.  Then  their  hearts  are  warm  and 
susceptible  to  religious  impressions;  they  are  all 
aglow  with  new-born  love  for  their  Saviour;  a 
suggestion  from  their  pastor  at  such  a  time,  made 
either  in  public  or  private,  will  usually  be  suf- 
ficient to  lead  them  to  put  giving  among  the 
primal  duties  of  the  Christian  life.  When  men 
have  grown  old  in  covetousness,  they  are  often 
quite  unimpressible.  Lignum  vitae  only  faintly 
suggests  their  hardness.  If  there  is  any  gold  in 
them,  it  can  be  gotten  out  only  as  they  are  broken 

[250] 


Christian  Benevolence 

in  pieces  by  God's  law,  as  gold  bearing  quartz  is 
shivered  to  atoms  in  a  quartz  crusher.  Whether 
such  men  will  ever  get  to  heaven,  the  judgment 
will  determine.  Perhaps  a  camel  will  sooner  go 
through  the  eye  of  a  needle;  but  such  covetous- 
ness,  bringing  with  it  possible  eternal  disaster, 
may,  in  many  cases,  be  averted  by  teaching  all 
young  converts,  when  their  hearts  are  susceptible 
to  every  good  impression,  the  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
tural benevolence. 

And  when  men  of  wealth  ask  for  admission  into 
our  churches,  ought  we  not  to  determine  before 
we  receive  them  whether  they  are  ready  to  give 
according  to  their  means?  Should  we  not  as  de- 
cisively refuse  to  baptize  a  covetous  man  as  a 
prayerless  one  I  We  sometimes  very  fittingly  ask 
an  applicant  for  church  membership,  ''Do  you 
prayT'  ''Yes.''  "Do  you  enjoy  prayer?" 
"Yes."  Why  not,  at  least  in  some  cases,  also 
ask,  "Do  you  give  your  money  to  aid  the  cause 
of  Christ  V  "  Yes. "  "  Do  you  enjoy  it  ? "  And 
if  the  applicant  could  answer  this  last  ques- 
tion in  the  affirmative,  would  it  not  be  as  clear 
an  evidence  of  conversion  as  enjoyment  of 
prayer! 

But  suppose  a  pastor  does  teach  in  all  its  length 
and  breadth  the  doctrine  of  benevolence,  and  also 
insists  on  baptizing  only  those  who  are  ready  to 
give  as  well  as  to  pray,  will  the  benevolence  of  his 
church  thereby  be  developed?  It  assuredly  will 
be,  if  the  pastor  speaks  every  word  in  love,  and 
is  not  impatient  if  he  does  not  see  immediate  re- 

[251] 


Science  and  Prayer 

suits.  Men  can  never  be  moved  to  benevolence 
by  vituperation.  Many  do  not  give  because  they 
have  never  been  fully  instructed  in  the  duty. 
They  should  not  be  denounced,  but  in  love  the 
whole  Scriptural  doctrine  should  be  laid  out  be- 
fore them.  Nor  should  pastors  lose  heart,  if  these 
men  do  not  at  once  reach  up  in  practice  to  the 
full  height  of  this  important  duty.  They  should 
remember  that  the  education  and  prejudices  of  a 
lifetime  are  in  many  cases  to  be  overcome,  and 
that  all  healthful  educational  processes  are  slow. 
But  the  truth  patiently  presented,  year  after  year, 
in  various  forms,  will  at  last  as  certainly  accom- 
plish its  mission,  as  the  rains  and  the  sunlight 
of  the  revolving  years  unfold  in  grandeur  and 
beauty  the  trees  of  the  forest. 

But  pastors  are  called  upon  not  only  to  unfold 
to  their  churches  all  that  the  Scriptures  teach 
concerning  the  duty  of  giving,  but  also  to  present 
the  claims  of  such  benevolences  as  their  churches 
may  be  able  to  meet.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
year,  so  far  as  practicable,  a  scheme  of  benevo- 
lence should  be  determined  by  each  church,  so 
that  all  in  the  congregation  may  know  what  will 
claim  their  attention  during  the  coming  twelve 
months.  The  church  is  thus  impressed  at  the 
start  that  it  has  work  to  do  in  giving.  This  im- 
pression will  of  itself  be  sufficient  to  bring  those 
who  have  benevolent  impulses  to  the  determina- 
tion to  give  something  to  the  various  objects 
named  in  the  schedule  for  the  year;  and  having 
the  whole  plan  for  the  year  before  them,  they  will 

[252] 


Christian  Benevolence 

be  able  to  make  a  just  and  fitting  distribution  of 
their  gifts  among  the  various  objects  claiming 
their  benevolence.  Whether  such  a  scheme  shall 
be  formed  or  not  usually  depends  on  the  pastor. 
If  he  has  the  confidence  of  his  church,  with  or- 
dinary firmness  he  can  generally  lead  them  to 
adopt  some  such  systematic  plan  of  giving. 

The  church  having  adopted  it,  shall  the  pastor 
present  the  claims  of  the  different  causes  named 
in  it,  or  shall  he  depend  on  agents  to  do  this? 
Agents  for  gathering  up  the  contributions  of  the 
churches,  for  the  present,  seem  to  be  a  necessity. 
If,  however,  every  pastor  would  do  his  whole  duty, 
they  might  be  dispensed  with.    But  many  pastors 
as  yet  either  do  not  understand  their  duty,  or  are 
umvilling  to  do  it.    So  our  great  missionary  soci- 
eties are  compelled  to  resort  to  agents,  to  eke  out, 
as  well  as  they  can,  the  imperfect  work  of  the 
pastors.    But  the  number  of  our  churches  is  now 
so  great,  that  our  agents,  in  a  single  year,  can 
reach  only  a  few  of  the  many.    And  if  the  pastors 
of  those  churches  which  the  agents  cannot  visit, 
in  any  given  year,  do  not  see  that  the  bodies  over 
which  they  preside  do  their  duty  in  giving,  the 
work  is  left  undone.     Every  pastor,  therefore, 
who  can  be  induced  to  do  this  work,  relieves  the 
agents  of  our  great  societies  from  the  work  of 
addressing  his  church,  and  enables  them  to  reach 
those  churches  whose  pastors  neglect  the  duty  of 
presenting  the  claims  of  benevolence. 

If,  however,  it  were  possible  for  the  agents 
representing  our  great  benevolent  enterprises  to 

[253] 


Science  and  Prayer 

visit  all  our  churches  each  year,  this  would  not 
secure  an  equitable  distribution  of  our  funds.  An 
agent  representing,  perchance,  some  compara- 
tively unimportant  enterprise,  might  have  the 
gift  of  stirring  up  the  emotions  of  his  auditors, 
and  so  awakening  their  enthusiasm,  that  they 
might  be  led  under  his  appeals  to  give  a  greater 
proportion  than  the  cause  which  he  represents 
relatively  demands ;  while  a  more  important  mis- 
sion work  represented  by  some  prosy,  inefficient 
agent,  might  not  receive  its  due  share  of  funds. 
But  if  a  pastor  faithfully  presents  the  various 
benevolences  in  their  due  order,  and  at  stated 
times,  the  distribution  of  gifts  among  the  various 
objects  brought  before  his  people  will  be  more 
equitable,  and  a  larger  amount  for  benevolent  pur- 
poses will  unquestionably  be  secured;  while  such 
a  course  will  steadily  develop  the  disposition  of 
the  church  to  contribute  from  principle,  and  will 
do  much  to  lift  them  up  to  the  high  standard  of 
systematic  giving. 

It  will  also  incidentally  be  of  vast  advantage  to 
the  pastor.  He  will  be  compelled  to  make  himself 
acquainted  with  the  work  of  the  various  mission 
and  educational  enterprises.  His  intelligence 
will  thereby  be  increased,  and  his  power  conse- 
quently enhanced.  What  he  acquires  he  will 
largely  impart  to  his  church,  and  thus  both  pastor 
and  people  will  be  brought  into  thorough  sym- 
pathy with  all  the  great  movements  for  the  evan- 
gelization of  the  world.  Such  sympathy  will 
inevitably  express  itself  in  liberal  giving. 

[254] 


Christian  Benevolence 

The  development  of  Christian  benevolence, 
therefore,  depends  upon  the  spirit  and  teaching 
of  our  pastors  more  than  upon  all  other  means 
combined.  This  is  the  key  of  the  whole  position. 
Pastors  who  are  liberal  in  giving,  who  unfold 
faithfully  and  in  love  all  that  the  Bible  contains 
on  the  subject  of  benevolence,  and  present  from 
year  to  year  the  claims  of  missions  and  of  Chris- 
tian education,  will  have  the  joy  of  seeing  their 
churches  constantly  growing  in  liberality.  Of  this 
there  is  no  more  doubt  than  that  the  thorough  till- 
age and  seasonable  sowing  of  good  soil  will  result 
ordinarily  in  rich  and  abundant  harvests.  In 
most  churches  where  benevolence  languishes,  it 
will  be  found  that  pastors  neglect  the  duties  on 
which  we  have  insisted  in  this  paper. 

How  can  pastors  be  induced  to  undertake  this 
neglected  work,  which  is  the  hinge-point  of  all 
our  mission  and  educational  enterprises  I 

First,  the  pastors  of  poor  churches  must  be,  in 
some  way,  disabused  of  the  false  notion  that  ap- 
peals to  their  churches  for  missions  will  render 
their  own  already  inadequate  support  doubly 
precarious.  As  praying  develops  the  spirit  of 
prayer,  so  giving  develops  the  spirit  of  benevo- 
lence. Cheerful  giving  is  an  experience  so 
precious  and  delightful,  that  he  who  has  felt  it 
once,  longs  for  its  repetition.  Hence  the  more 
Christians  give,  the  more  they  are  disposed  to 
give.  The  pastor,  who  in  self-forgetfulness  leads 
his  church  to  contribute  systematically,  according 
to  their  ability,  to  objects  of  general  interest  out- 

[255] 


Science  and  Prayer 

side  of  themselves,  will  be  usually  himself  best 
supported.    He  that  loses  his  life  saves  it. 

Now  that  pastors  may  be  rid  of  this  false  idea, 
against  which  we  have  just  inveighed,  and  may 
be  led  to  do  the  work  requisite  for  developing 
Christian  benevolence,  their  duty  ought  to  l3e  set 
before  them  and  urged  upon  them  by  the  religious 
press,  by  discussions  in  ministerial  conferences, 
associations,  conventions  and  social  unions.  This 
agitation  ought  to  go  on,  until  the  public  senti- 
ment on  the  subject  shall  become  so  positive  and 
pronounced,  that  it  will  be  as  disgraceful  for  a 
minister  of  the  gospel  to  neglect  to  preach  the 
Scriptural  doctrine  of  benevolence,  as  to  fail  to 
preach  the  doctrines  of  repentance,  faith  and  the 
atonement. 

Here  too  our  theological  seminaries  have  a 
duty  which,  in  some  of  them,  is  somewhat  neg- 
lected. They  teach  exegesis,  doctrinal  theology, 
history  and  homiletics,  but  either  quite  neglect 
pastoral  duties,  or  teach  them  with  little  care. 
Young  men  who  have  no  thorough  training  in 
pastoral  work  are  sent  out  to  take  charge  of 
churches.  Something,  to  be  sure,  they  have  picked 
up  by  being  thrown  in  contact  with  ministers  and 
churches;  but  in  reference  to  many  of  the  most 
important  duties  of  a  Christian  pastor  they  are 
the  merest  novices.  Years  pass  away  before  some 
of  them  fully  learn  their  duty  in  reference  to  the 
benevolence  of  the  churches ;  and  some  of  them,  it 
is  to  be  feared,  never  learn  it.  Would  it  not  be 
well  for  the  ablest  pastors  of  our  churches  fre- 

[256] 


Christian  Benevolence 

quently  to  give  courses  of  lectures  in  our  semi- 
naries on  the  whole  round  of  pastoral  duties? 
Then,  it  may  be,  our  young  men  might  go  forth 
better  equipped  for  their  tasks  as  pastors,  and 
taking  thoroughly  and  intelligently  in  hand  the 
work  of  benevolence  in  our  churches,  our  missions 
would  be  more  abundantly  supplied  with  funds 
and  augmented  in  power,  while  our  institutions 
of  learning  would  no  longer  be  crippled  for  lack 
of  needful  endowments. 

I  have  not  dwelt  at  all,  in  this  paper,  on  the  best 
methods  of  collecting  money  in  our  churches ;  not 
because  these  are  not  important;    but  I  felt  as- 
sured that  no  system  of  collecting  funds  could 
prove  effective  unless  it  was  energized  by  a  strong 
public  sentiment.     Hence  I  have  tried  to   give 
emphasis  to  that  which  is  most  important.    With 
such  public  sentiment  awakened  in  favor  of  giv- 
ing, almost  any  method  of  gathering  contribu- 
tions will  secure   great  results.     The  apostolic 
method,  however,  so  far  as  we  can  gather  it  from 
the  Scriptures,  was  that  each  believer  should  con- 
tribute each  week  according  as  God  had  prospered 
him.    And,  on  the  whole,  weekly  or  monthly  con- 
tributions are  manifestly  best  now.     Men  who 
work  for  day  wages  and  salaries  usually  find  it 
easier  to  pay  a  small  sum  each  week  or  month 
than  the  aggregate  of  these  sums  for  a  year,  at 
one  time.    And  while  most  of  those  in  our  churches 
are  above  want,  they  are  not  rich.    Many  of  them 
who  would  find  it  very  inconvenient,  and  would 
probably  refuse  to  give  at  any  one  time  a  large 

[257] 


Science  and  Prayer 

amount,  could  and  would  give  it  in  small  sums 
distributed  through  the  year.  Moreover,  this  con- 
stant giving  forms  the  habit  of  benevolence  much 
more  effectually  than  an  extraordinary  effort  once 
in  twelve  months,  and  thus  much  more  powerfully 
tends  to  develop  the  grace  of  giving. 

But  no  such  system  of  giving  will  run  itself. 
When  it  is  undertaken,  the  pastor,  or  some  one 
else,  must  see  to  it  that  through  committees  and 
solicitors  every  member  of  the  church  is  reached 
and  that  all  pay  the  weekly  or  monthly  subscrip- 
tions made. 

Finally,  if  we  would  most  effectively  develop 
the  benevolence  of  our  churches  there  must  be 
absolute  fidelity  in  the  use  of  the  funds  contrib- 
uted. The  money  must  go  in  straight  lines  to  the 
object  for  which  it  is  given.  The  smallest  possi- 
ble amount  consistent  with  justice  and  the  secur- 
ing of  the  highest  efficiency  must  be  consumed  on 
the  salaries  of  those  who  serve  as  secretaries  and 
agents.  The  most  able  missionaries,  home  and 
foreign,  must  be  employed.  Money  expended  on 
beneficiaries  must  sustain  young  men  of  piety 
and  brains.  Institutions  endowed  with  the  money 
of  the  churches  must  give  back  to  the  churches 
ministers  and  laymen  with  minds  well  stored,  and 
intellects  sharply  disciplined.  Nothing  so  much 
discourages  giving  as  any  diversion  of  funds  or 
unwise  expenditure  of  money  by  those  who  have 
intrusted  to  them  the  management  of  our  benevo- 
lences; and  nothing  does  more  to  encourage  giv- 
ing than  the  faithful  and  economical  use  of  the 

[258] 


Christian  Benevolence 

money  contributed,  and  the  successful  accom- 
plishment of  the  work  fostered  and  encouraged 
by  it. 

There  is  money  enough  in  our  churches  to  carry 
forward  the  mission  and  educational  enterprises 
already  begun,  on  a  much  larger  scale  than  we, 
as  yet,  have  dared  to  undertake,  without  percep- 
tibly diminishing  our  wealth  or  comforts.  But  all 
the  members  of  our  churches  have  not  yet  learned 
that  fundamental  fact  of  Christian  experience 
that  they  and  all  their  possessions  belong  to 
Christ,  and  that  they  are  simply  his  stewards  to 
dispense  their  wealth  for  his  glory.  When  that 
lesson  is  really  learned,  then  money  for  benevolent 
purposes  will  be  poured  out  without  stint.  But 
if  the  churches  ever  learn  the  lesson,  our  pastors 
must  teach  it,  enforce  it,  and  illustrate  it  by  their 
example.  The  Spirit,  too,  must  be  poured  out 
mightily  till  Christians  are  lifted  up  out  of  their 
selfishness  into  Christ,  and,  partaking  largely  of 
his  life,  learn  by  happy  experience  the  truth  of 
his  words,  that  '4t  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to 
receive.'* 


[259] 


1    1012  01148  8212 


Date  Due 

r 

f""^ 

MAY   ^' 

1/ 

^ 

■iiiiisiiii^  iiii 


-IT  '  1"'   "I'l"'''-''!-''  «"•'      i.l.li,<i  I' 


